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

RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:03:27 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C033912D4@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
There was never agreement to remove them.  We agreed that we would
provide a document that faithfully captured identifiers for all WSDL 1.1
elements and then scope the policy attachment using wsdl 1.1 EIs to just
the subjects defined by ws-policy.  
 
Cheers,
Dave


________________________________

	From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:51 PM
	To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Cc: David Orchard
	Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2
	
	
	I have the recollection of agreeing NOT to include element/type
decls. Thus, I am somewhat confused as to why we still have them in the
document. 
	
	Shortly, +1 to remove them. 
	 
	--umit
	 
	 

________________________________

		From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
		Sent: Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 3:38 PM
		To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
		Cc: dorchard@bea.com
		Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2
		
		

		I do not see a usecase for referring to element
declarations and type definitions in a WSDL 1.1 document from outside
the document.

		So, I'm happy to see them removed.

		 

		DaveO, perhaps you had a reason for including these?  If
so, pray tell.

		 

		All the best, Ashok 

		
________________________________


		From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton
		Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:09 PM
		To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
		Subject: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2

		 

		http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4332

		 

		The inclusion of identifiers for element declarations
and type definitions (which are not WSDL 1.1 elements) seems
inappropriate in this spec.  The presence of schema imports and includes
makes associating type definitions with a particular WSDL document, and
thus with a particular targetNamespace, problematic.  These identifiers
don't seem to be required by WS-Policy Attachment.  We recommend
removing them.  If these identifiers remain, a number of issues related
to them should be addressed, including:

		a.   How imports and includes affect them.  Are only
in-lined schema elements considered?  Only elements in a schema
targetNamespace that is the same as the WSDL targetNamespace?  If not,
which ones?

		b.   Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL
element identifiers identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema
namespaces.

		c.   Correction of the "types" vs. "type definitions"
issue, described at [1].

		                        

		[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html

		 

		 

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

		
________________________________


		From: public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Marsh
		Sent: February 15, 2007 9:46 PM
		To: public-ws-policy-comments@w3.org
		Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
		Subject: WSDL WG Comments on WSDL 1.1 Element
Identifiers

		 

		Follows are some comments from the WSDL WG on the WSDL
1.1 Element Identifiers draft.

		 

		1.   As in WSDL 2.0 component designators, this spec
recommends the creation of an identifier from the targetNamespace of the
WSDL 1.1 document, and that this identifier can be resolved without
considering imports and includes.  Unlike WSDL 2.0, in WSDL 1.1 the
targetNamespace is not required, and although there is no
wsdl11:include, we have some evidence that some customers have used
multiple wsdl11:imports of the same namespace (which can be the same as
the targetNamespace) and different locations to modularlize their
documents - and that a number of popular tools actually support this
"abuse" of import.  These situations demonstrate the limits of the
assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between a WSDL 1.1 document and a
WSDL 1.1 targetNamespace.  The spec's recommendation to construct an
identifier using the targetNamespace doesn't work in these situations.
The spec should at least note situations (edge cases) which conflict
with the advice about creation of an element identifier from the
targetNamespace.

		 

		2.   The inclusion of identifiers for element
declarations and type definitions (which are not WSDL 1.1 elements)
seems inappropriate in this spec.  The presence of schema imports and
includes makes associating type definitions with a particular WSDL
document, and thus with a particular targetNamespace, problematic.
These identifiers don't seem to be required by WS-Policy Attachment.  We
recommend removing them.  If these identifiers remain, a number of
issues related to them should be addressed, including:

		d.   How imports and includes affect them.  Are only
in-lined schema elements considered?  Only elements in a schema
targetNamespace that is the same as the WSDL targetNamespace?  If not,
which ones?

		e.   Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL
element identifiers identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema
namespaces.

		f.     Correction of the "types" vs. "type definitions"
issue, described at [1].

		                        

		Thank you.

		 

		[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html

		 

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

		 

		 
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 00:05:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:47 GMT