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

RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:29:21 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416503837127@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
I doubt it, since the bug is created by WSDL 2.0 wg anyway :-)
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
	Sent: Friday, Feb 23, 2007 2:49 PM
	To: Christopher B Ferris; Yalcinalp, Umit
	Cc: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2
	
	
	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 Saturday, 24 February 2007 00:27:24 GMT

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