W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Import/Include - a proposal

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:01:26 +0100
Message-Id: <B54F33E4-0B26-11D9-A599-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>
Cc: nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com, ylafon@w3.org, Monica.Martin@Sun.COM, martin.chapman@oracle.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
To: Hao.He@thomson.com

This is why I made the proposal to use XInclude.

If you have any suggestions as to how this should/would/ought to work 
with WS-CDL I for one would be most grateful to hear them. That way we 
can avoid this problem of duplication of effort. I guess what is needed 
is a clear understanding of what WS-CDL needs to do to reuse WS-CDL so 
that we can understand how much work is required to edit the 
specification to incorporate it. Any ideas?

Cheers

Steve T

On 20 Sep 2004, at 00:29, Hao.He@thomson.com wrote:

>
> I am worried about creating yet another import/include mechanism.  It 
> seems
> every Web service spec has its own.
>
> Hao
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 18 September 2004 4:43
> To: 'Yves Lafon'
> Cc: 'Nickolas Kavantzas'; 'Steve Ross-Talbot'; 'Monica J. Martin';
> public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Import/Include - a proposal
>
>
>
> I'm not sure one actually has to define an infoset model, as it can be
> implied
> from any xml doc as long as certain restrictions are
> followed (as defined in infoset spec) - but we should verify this.
>
> Martin.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
>> Sent: 17 September 2004 14:27
>> To: Martin Chapman
>> Cc: 'Nickolas Kavantzas'; 'Steve Ross-Talbot'; 'Monica J.
>> Martin'; public-ws-chor@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Import/Include - a proposal
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Martin Chapman wrote:
>>
>>> Surely to close this resolution properly we need to define the
>>> mechanism similar to Xinclude but for cdl documents which are not
>>> infoset based.
>>
>> We have two choices there:
>> 1/ have CDL defined in terms of infoset
>> 2/ define our own inclusion mechanism (with all the rulse
>> saying that it
>>    is only a syntactic inclusion, etc...)
>>
>> SOAP 1.2 is defined in terms of infoset.
>> WSDL 2.0 has its own data model, and they defined an inclusion
>> mechanism
>> different from XInclude for that reason.
>>
>> In 1/ we have to evaluate the impact on CDL, in 2/ we have to
>> argue why we
>> need that new inclusion mechanism (which is related to 1/), so
>> I have no
>> real preference, as long as we keep the original proposal
>> which is to have
>> a syntactic only inclusion mechanism (ie: including a variable
>> definition
>> form another choreo doesn't mean importing its semantic)
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#imports
>>
>> -- 
>> Yves Lafon - W3C
>> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
>>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 18:55:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:05 GMT