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

RE: Bug 3599

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:53:30 -0700
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20061010045330319.00000003536@amalhotr-pc>

Felix:
I agree we shd not use the word component wrt WSDL 1.1.
Something like your sentence below is fine.
>"Individual elements in the XML representation of a WSDL 
> 1.1 file refer  to definitions that we may want to associate 
> Policies with."

But I disagree with yr point about potential confusion between
references to WSDL 2.0 components and WSDL 1.1 elements.
I think the wrapper element makes the intent clear.  Also, the
XPointer syntax is much more user-friendly. 

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:33 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; Anish Karmarkar
> Subject: Re: Bug 3599
> 
> Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> > Felix summarized the position on this issue in his note.
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/0057.html
> >
> > Let me make a concrete proposal.  I will number the steps in this 
> > proposal so people can refer easily to the step they agree 
> or disagree with.
> >
> > 1. There is a requirement that it shd be possible to associate 
> > Policies with individual elements in an XML representation 
> of a WSDL 
> > 1.1 file using the external attachment mechanism defined in 
> section 3.4 of the WS-Policy Attachment document.
> 
> agree.
> 
> >
> > 2. Although WSDL 1.1 does not define the term "component" we 
> > understand that individual elements in the XML representation of a 
> > WSDL 1.1 file refer to definitions that we may want to 
> associate Policies with.  That is, it shd be possible to make 
> these elements the subject of a Policy.
> 
> I would propose to drop the term "component". If your wording 
> is also meant as an input to the attachment draft, I would 
> say "Individual elements in the XML representation of a WSDL 
> 1.1 file refer  to definitions that we may want to associate 
> Policies with. That is, it should be possible to make these 
> elements the subject of a Policy."
> 
> >
> > 3. XPointer spec says that it is "...intended to be used as a basis 
> > for fragment identifiers for any resource whose Internet 
> media type is 
> > one of text/xml, application/xml, 
> text/xml-external-parsed-entity, or 
> > application/xml-external-parsed-entity. Other XML-based media types 
> > are also encouraged to use this framework in defining their own 
> > fragment identifier languages."  (Note that the XPointer syntax is 
> > based on XPath 1.0 with an important shortcut: if an element 
> > information item has an attribute or child element that is 
> of type ID, 
> > the value of that attribute/element can be used to refer to the 
> > element.  Thus, for example, the XPath syntax: 
> /element-name(ID='X') 
> > can be abbreviated as /X.)
> 
> my requirement is: we should be clear that we don't confuse 
> the WSDL 1.1 and the WSDL 2.0 case.
> In your proposal for issue 3730 at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/a
> tt-0069/Proposal_for_Bug_3730-v2.pdf
> , reffering to wsdl 2.0 components looks like
> 
> <wsp:AppliesTo>
> <wsp:wsdl20Ref>
> http://example.com.LoanFlow#wsdl.service(LoanFlowService)
> </wsp:wsdl20Ref>
> </wsp:AppliesTo>
> 
> Now, using XPointer for WSDL 1.1 in the way you propose, could lead to
> confusion:
> 
> <wsp:AppliesTo>
> <wsp:wsdl11Ref>
> http://example.com.LoanFlow#wsdl.service(LoanFlowService)
> </wsp:wsdl11Ref>
> </wsp:AppliesTo>
> 
> the above is IMO confusing since in the wsdl 2.0 case, you 
> refer to components, but in the WSDl 1.1 case, you refer to 
> information items in the XML representation.
> 
> Using XPath for the WSDL 1.1 case could look like:
> 
> <wsp:AppliesTo>
> <wsp:wsdl11Ref>
> http://example.com.LoanFlow#xpath2(//wsdl.service[@name='LoanF
> lowService'])
> </wsp:wsdl11Ref>
> </wsp:AppliesTo>
> 
> (I used XPath 2, since XPath 1 is not yet a registered 
> XPointer scheme at http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/).
> With XPath, it becomes obvious that the WSDL 1.1. case relies 
> on the XML structure.
> 
> >
> > 4. The media type for used for WSDL 1.1 files is text/xml 
> so the XPointer framework can be used to generate fragment 
> identifiers for WSDL 1.1 files.   Thus, starting with the URI 
> of a file that contains WSDL 1.1 definitions in XML format we 
> can use XPointer to construct URI references to identify 
> individual elements in a WSDL 1.1 file.
> 
> agree, except s/XPointer to construct/XPath to construct/ .
> 
> >
> > 5. These URI References can then be used (with a suitable 
> wrapper) as 
> > Domain Expressions in an AppliesTo element in the external 
> attachment mechanism described in section 3.4 of the Policy 
> Attachment document.
> 
> agree.
> 
> Felix
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 11:55:50 GMT

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