W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2006

RE: Discussion on issue 3599

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:16:11 -0700
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC225719C5333A4E@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Thank you for starting this thread.  Unfortunately I have several questions about your synopsis of your offline dialogue with Ashok and Philippe.

> Philippe and me raised a concern about the XPointer mechanism: it points to WSDL 2.0 components, and not the XML representation of the WSDL document.

I am confused by this statement.  Wouldn't a use of XPointer have to point to the XML representation since it has no knowledge of anything else?  Can you explain exactly what you mean by the "XPointer mechanism"?

> For WSDL 1.1., there is no clear definition of a component model.

Agreed.

> We argued that using XPath instead of XPointer for the WSDL 1.1.
> external attachment would make it clear that we refer to the XML
> representation, and there would be no need to define a component model
> for WSDL 1.1.

See my above questions.

> One example difference between the component model in WSDL 2.0 and the
> XML representation is that the former takes import/include into account,
> while the latter doesn't.

This is an extremely important point that has not been made before in the WG discussion.

> Ashok had pointed out that there is not much difference between the
> XPath and XPointer syntax and proposed to use the syntax he had proposed
> for referring to WSDL 1.1 components [5] (search for "For WSDL 1.1. we
> suggest").
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html

The F2F meeting pointed out that using this syntax in [5] combined with the URI of the WSDL file and separated by a hash would look like a fragment identifier which is NOT feasible since there is no MIME type that defines this for WSDL 1.1.  Is Ashok attempting to revert back to that proposal?

> Using this syntax would IMO look like operating on the (yet
> to be defined) WSDL 1.1 component model and not on the XML representation.

I agree that without a WSDL 1.1 component model then any approach is problematic unless there is significant work in the definition of the selected pointer mechanism to specify exactly what part of the WSDL file was being selected.  This sounds like doing the work to define a component model for WSDL 1.1 which is clearly out of scope of our work.

/paulc


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: October 5, 2006 1:44 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Discussion on issue 3599
>
>
> This is my action item 121 "Felix to Start a mail thread on the
> discussion between Ashok, PLH and Felix on issue 3599"
> http://www.w3.org/2006/10/04-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01 .
>
> Background: At the September f2f I described several issues as "out of
> scope", see [1]. Issue 3599 [2] was one of them.
> After I had left the f2f early, this issue was discussed [3]. The
> proposal from Ashok, to use fragment IDs for the external attachment,
> brought up the problem that there is no mime type for WSDL 1.1. defined,
> and it is unclear who would define it or what to do with the existing
> WSDL 1.1. documents that don't have a mime type.
> Using XPointer to refer to WSDL definitions would solve the mime type
> problem. Ashok had the AI to consider this proposal [4].
>
> Discussion between Ashok, PLH and Felix: Philippe and me raised a
> concern about the XPointer mechanism: it points to WSDL 2.0 components,
> and not the XML representation of the WSDL document. For WSDL 1.1.,
> there is no clear definition of a component model. We argued that using
> XPath instead of XPointer for the WSDL 1.1. external attachment would
> make it clear that we refer to the XML representation, and there would
> be no need to define a component model for WSDL 1.1.
> One example difference between the component model in WSDL 2.0 and the
> XML representation is that the former takes import/include into account,
> while the latter doesn't.
> Ashok had pointed out that there is not much difference between the
> XPath and XPointer syntax and proposed to use the syntax he had proposed
> for referring to WSDL 1.1 components [5] (search for "For WSDL 1.1. we
> suggest"). Using this syntax would IMO look like operating on the (yet
> to be defined) WSDL 1.1 component model and not on the XML representation.
>
> Felix
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0064.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#item13
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 16:18:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT