RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment
LC120 [1].  The Working Group agreed to add references from the import
section to the QName section to clarify that wsdl:import is a forward
declaration at the syntax level and not a component model "include".  We
also agreed to wording changes to section 4.2 to make this clear.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC120

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:38 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
> 
> 
> Statements in Part 1 about the meaning of wsdl:import appear to be
> contradictory.  On one hand, sec 4.2 says that wsdl:import is not
> transitive.  On the other hand, sec 2.1.1 says there is no difference
> between included/imported components and components derived directly
> from a
> WSDL 2.0 document, and this logically leads to import being
> transitive.
> 
> Suppose WSDL document A imports WSDL document B, which imports WSDL
> document C, which neither includes nor imports anything.  The
> components of
> C will be only the components derived directly from the XML Infoset of
> C.  Since B imports C, clearly the set of components for B will
> include the
> set of components for C.  So far so good.  But A now imports B, so
> what
> components will A have?  We have already established that the set of
> components of B includes the set of components from C as a subset.
> Since
> there is no distinction made between the subset of components that
> originated in C and the other components, the components of A must
> therefore also include the components of C as a subset.  This
> contradicts
> the statement that "wsdl:import is not transitive".
> 
> The basic problem here is that the spec is referring to the
> *components* of
> the imported document.  Those components only exist if we interpret
> the
> meaning of the imported document according to the WSDL 2.0
> specification,
> at which point there is no way to know whether those imported
> components
> originated in the imported document or another document
> (transitively).
> 
> Here are the relevant excerpts from the spec:
> 
> Part 1 sec 4.2 Importing Descriptions
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?co
> ntent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#imports
> second paragraph says:
> [[
> Components in directly imported descriptions are part of the component
> model of the importing description. Directly imported means that
> component
> importation is not transitive; components imported by one of the
> imported
> documents are NOT available to the original importing document unless
> the
> are imported directly by that document.
> ]]
> 
> But section 2.1.1 The Description Component
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?co
> ntent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_details
> sixth paragraph says:
> [[
> The set of interfaces/binding/services/etc. available in the
> Description
> component include those that are defined within the component itself
> and
> those that are imported and/or included. Note that at the component
> model
> level, there is no distinction between directly defined components vs.
> imported/included components.
> ]]
> Furthermore, sec 2.1.3 Mapping Description's XML Representation to
> Component Properties
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?co
> ntent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_Mapping
> also shows no distinction between components that originated in the
> WSDL
> 2.0 document and components that originated in an included/imported
> document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:44:04 UTC