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 14:49:18 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C03437EA3@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Wouldn't that violate the spirit of our agreement with the WSDL WG?
That is, we can do the WSDL 1.1 EIs as long as we do all the EIs.  These
EIs are listed as WSDL 2.0 CDs, so I'd expect that violates our
agreement.
 
Cheers,
Dave


________________________________

	From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:48 AM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit
	Cc: Ashok Malhotra; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	Subject: 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 
	>   
	>  
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 22:49:53 GMT

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