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

RE: Bug 3599

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:53:38 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <1755.218.110.62.87.1160556818.squirrel@webmail.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, "Anish Karmarkar" <anish.karmarkar@oracle.com>

Hi Ashok,

>
> 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.

One argument for XPath would be: there is no need to define a syntax other
than the one below. I'm not sure if this is also the case if we don't use
XPath. At the start of this thread at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/0070.html ,
you wrote:
"If the WG agrees on the approach, I can spell out the exact syntax."
Assuming a basic pattern like the following
<wsp:AppliesTo>
<wsp:wsdl11Ref>
http://example.com.LoanFlow#wsdl.service(LoanFlowService)
</wsp:wsdl11Ref>
</wsp:AppliesTo>
, what I am worried about is that "spell out the exact syntax" encompasses
listing what can occur after "#" and before "(". We then would need to
agree on the items of that list, which might be problematic and take time.
Do you agree that this listing is not necessary?

Felix

>
> 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 Wednesday, 11 October 2006 08:53:50 GMT

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