W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2002

RE: importing docs in the same namespace

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:06:06 -0700
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'WS-Desc WG (Public)'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020f01c26bd0$b5fa13f0$1b0ba8c0@beasys.com>
BEA really likes the idea of splitting the interface and impl parts more
strongly.  Ideally, they would even be separate schemas so that one could
validate them strictly.  As in, a workflow language that describes the
relationships between abstract things shouldn't be allowed to have
implementation info.  

BTW, one of the hopes of XInclude was to obviate the need for so darned many
*:include syntaxes with their own specialized parsing rules.  What was the
rationale for not using Xinclude for this functionality?  Given Jonathon's
leadership on XInclude, I'm sure there are very valid reasons.  I'm just
curious what they are.  

sigh.  The endless debate on how to do linking and references in XML
continues....

Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:14 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: 04 October 2002 17:50
> > To: Martin Gudgin; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > Subject: Re: importing docs in the same namespace
> > 
> > 
> > If we don't allow this the recommended usage style of
> > WSDL 1.1 no longer works. That basically said split the 
> > interface part of the service to one file and the impl part 
> > to another and import the interface part there - which still 
> > seems like the natural and correct split.
> 
> You could use XInclude to do that, I think we talked about 
> that approach
> in Paris. Or we could define a wsdl:include with the same semantics as
> xsd:include ( sans chameleon include, probably ) ( I know we already
> decided not to define wsdl:include).
> 
> > 
> > So, I believe this should be another case of how
> > we diverge from XSD import semantics.
> 
> Apart from requiring schemaLocation what are the other cases where we
> diverge?
> 
> Gudge
> 
> 


Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 14:18:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT