W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2007

RE: rpc:signature question.

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:50:47 -0800
To: <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01d601c75549$f2fc19d0$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR149 [1]. 

The latest editor's draft [2] no longer uses fixed-width for the words
"input" or "output" in this section.

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR149
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#InterfaceOperation_RPC_Signature_De
finition


Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: 'www-ws-desc'
> Subject: Re: rpc:signature question.
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> The word "input" in "child of the input element" should have been
> written in regular type, as opposed to fixed-width.
> 
> The expression means more than what you describe ("element declaration
> in the complexType declared by the {element declaration} of the Message
> Reference component with {direction} 'in'") because there are many ways
> to declare child elements in schema, e.g. with model groups.
> 
> It is true though that "the input element" means the "{element
> declaration} of the Message Reference component with {direction} 'in'".
> It's stating the other half which is hard. It'd be much easier if XML
> Schema had a core language like Relax NG (<insert favorite rant on this
> topic here/>), because then we could compile away model groups and other
> oddities.
> 
> There may be an indirect way of saying this. What the assertion in
> question is really saying is that, for each valid instance of the
> "element declaration in the complexType declared by the {element
> declaration} of the Message Reference component with {direction} 'in'",
> it MUST be the case that the corresponding EII has among its [children]
> one EII whose qualified name matches the given one. A similar
> constraint, but negative, should be placed on the output element.
> Indirectly, such a universally quantified constraint on all valid EIIs
> would reflect back into a constraint at the schema level for which,
> alas, there appears to be no concise expression.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roberto
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Assertion WRPC-0053 [1] states:
> >
> >
> >
> > For each pair //(q, #in)//, there MUST be a child element of the |input|
> > element with a name of //q//. There MUST NOT be a child element of the
> > |output| element with the name of //q//.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is "child of the input element" supposed to mean?  The <wsdl:input>
> > element doesn't have significant children (extensions and
> > documentation).  So it could instead mean an "element declaration in the
> > complexType declared by the {element declaration} of the Message
> > Reference component with {direction} 'in'".  Is that the intention?
> >
> > The assertions immediately following this one also suffer generally from
> > this malaise.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5023
> >
> >
> >
> > **Jonathan Marsh** - http://www.wso2.com -
> > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 23:51:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:33 GMT