RE: importing docs in the same namespace

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: 04 October 2002 19:06
> To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
> Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> 
> 
> 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.  

So, message and portTypes in one place, bindings and services in
another?

> 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.  

Oh, you CAN use XInclude. WDSL is Infoset based so if you build a WSDL
infoset using XInclude you're fine ( arguably we can't tell whether you
did that or not... )

Gudge

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

Remember, if you see a light at the end of the tunnerl, you're about to
get crushed by an oncoming train!

Gudge

> 
> 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 14:29:57 UTC