W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > May 2005

RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 12:07:08 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507955E9C@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I had an action to look into these notational conventions.  I also see
the issue has been closed as editorial, so I propose this as simply
direction to the editors (with Umit's agreement).

 

The notational convention in WSDL 2.0 [1] doesn't support using type
names for element content (it only defines it for attributes).  So that
doesn't help us determine whether the type is the type of the element,
or the type of the content.  RelationshipType, having an attribute,
implies the type applies only to the content, and I think this is a good
thing since it is consistent with allowing attribute extensibility.

 

I suggest we add the following statement to our notational conventions:

 

WSDL 2.0 defines a notational convention for BNF Pseudo-schemas [WDSL
2.0 section 1.4.8].  This specification extends that syntax to assign
elements with simple content a value which corresponds to the type of
their content, as defined in the normative schema.

 

The notation in 2.2 would become:

 

<wsa:EndpointReference>

    <wsa:Address>xs:anyURI</wsa:Address>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:EndpointReference>

 

And the notation in 3.1 would become:

 

<wsa:MessageID>xs:anyURI</wsa:MessageID> 
<wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="xs:anyURI"?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> 
<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> 
<wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> 
<wsa:From>

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:From> 
<wsa:ReplyTo>

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:ReplyTo> 
<wsa:FaultTo>

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:FaultTo>

 

I don't think it would be too abusive of the notation to also indicate
the cardinality of each of these elements, even though they appear at
the top level as follows:

 

<wsa:MessageID>xs:anyURI</wsa:MessageID> ? 
<wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="xs:anyURI"?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> *

<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> ? 
<wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> 
<wsa:From> ?

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:From> 
<wsa:ReplyTo> ?

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:ReplyTo> 
<wsa:FaultTo> ?

    <wsa:Address/>

    <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ?

    <wsa:Metadata /> ?

</wsa:FaultTo>

 

I also note that this notation doesn't deal with extension attributes
and elements either way.  The schema itself of other places in the spec
seem reasonable places to look for that level of detail.

 

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#bnfp
seudoschemas

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:04 PM
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Subject: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification

 

This is an editorial comment. 

WSD wg has adopted a BNF style for designating pseudo schemas and used
in WSDL 2.0 specifications consistently. The definition is available in
the current WSDL 2.0 Core Language specification [1], in section 1.4.8.
Using this style differentiates a pseudo schema from an actual example
that contains a concrete schema or a document fragment. Further, it
improves the readibility of the pseudo schemas. The values of attributes
and elements are designated by schema types in italics when actual
values are not used. 

I propose the wg to adopt the same pseudo schemas style to improve the
readability of Example 2.1 and Example 3.1 in the WS-Addressing Core
Specification [2] and whenever pseudo schemas are needed in the future
for other WS-Addressing specs. I recommend referring to WSDL 2.0 Core
Language specification for examples throughout. 

As an example, Example 3.1 states the following: 

<wsa:MessageID> xs:anyURI </wsa:MessageID> 
<wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="..."?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> 
<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> 
<wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> 
<wsa:From>endpoint-reference</wsa:From> 
<wsa:ReplyTo>endpoint-reference</wsa:ReplyTo> 
<wsa:FaultTo>endpoint-reference</wsa:FaultTo> 

By adopting the style, xs:anyURI would be in italics,
"endpoint-reference" should be replaced by wsa:EndpointReferenceType in
italics. 

<wsa:MessageID> xs:anyURI </wsa:MessageID> 
<wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="..."?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> 
<wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> 
<wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> 
<wsa:From>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:From> 
<wsa:ReplyTo>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:ReplyTo> 
<wsa:FaultTo>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:FaultTo> 

 

Thanks, 

--umit 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#bnfpseudoschemas
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#bnfpseudoschemas>  
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/>  
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 19:10:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT