RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2

We closed 4045 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4045) by 
limiting the scope of the
URI domain expression, not by removing the element identifiers not 
pertinent to policy attachment
points.

However, I too would be fine removing these (since I thought we should 
have scoped it to the
policy attachment points in the first place, precisely because I was 
concerned that there might
be technical issues that would require lengthy discussion to resolve:-)

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/21/2007 06:51:18 PM:

> 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://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> 
>