Art,
Quite right. The <explicitAddress> itself could be a URI. That's
even simpler.
I think leaving the big "if" to the Public to give a counter-example
is still an ok way to go. That is, unless someone comes up with a
use-case for an addressable "thing" that can't be formulated as a URI.
Best regards,
- Michelle
On 8/18/05, Art Botterell <> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2005, at 8/18/05 9:14 PM, Michelle Raymond wrote:
> > I too, would support the use of URIs. I'd even go so far as to change
> > it to the type anyUri and to the <valueListURN><value> format and risk
> > public comment in the "no, that won't work" manner. It would be
> > cleaner and more consistent with the rest of the spec.
>
> Um, I'm confused now. If we were to use URIs... and for me that's
> still a big "if," since I've yet to hear anyone actually explain how
> they can represent all the various addressing schemes out there, or
> even claim that they can... but if we were to do so, why then would
> we need the <valueListURN>/<value> structure? At that point wouldn't
> we just have a list of URIs?
>
> - Art
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
