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: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:49:16 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C03437EA2@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
You are quite correct, WS-Policy attachment wouldn't be interested in
them.  
 
Cheers,
dave


________________________________

	From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:10 PM
	To: David Orchard; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2
	
	
	Wouldn't the limitation to subjects defined by ws-policy leave
the utility of the identifiers for elements/type decls somewhat
ambigious from the WS-Policy perspective anyway? 
	 
	--umit
	 


________________________________

		From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
		Sent: Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 4:03 PM
		To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Ashok Malhotra;
public-ws-policy@w3.org
		Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2
		
		
		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 Friday, 23 February 2007 22:49:38 GMT

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