W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Generic Property Processor Proposal That Achieves Readability and Validation

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:19:01 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDFF1F38D.E9F4AF0A-ON85256D2F.007011CA@torolab.ibm.com>
Jonathan,

<wsdl:propertySchema namespace="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/"/>

tells a WSDL processor that any element in the namespace defines a 
property. The namespace is some XSD namespace and the schema should be 
referenced as usual to enable validation.

Given the following WSDL:

<sa:Action 
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/">http://www.stockquote.com/GetLastPrice</sa:Action>

the processor interprets this as assigning a value 
http://www.stockquote.com/GetLastPrice to the property 
http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/Action which in the 
previously proposed syntax is

<wsdl:property 
name="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/Action">
        <value>http://www.stockquote.com/GetLastPrice</value>
</wsdl:property>

If you are concerned that folks will forget the <propertySchema> element, 
then we could regard a few import property schemas as well-known and not 
require their explicit declaration. However, one of the goals the 
<property> proposal was to be extensible so anyone can add new properties 
and the WSDL processor will handle them correctly. Therefore we need a way 
for users to declare new property schemas.

If you don't like the name "propertySchema" then maybe something like 
<propertyNamespace uri="some-uri"/> is better. Feel free to pick a better 
name.

Arthur Ryman




"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/23/2003 03:32 PM

 
        To:     <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Generic Property Processor Proposal That Achieves Readability and 
Validation

 


Nit point, but what is the localname "propertySchema" supposed to
signify?  The semantics is "associate QNames in this namespace(s) with
WSDL properties."  So I don't see where schemas come in other than that
the proposal is more amenable to schema (or other types of) validation.

Which got me thinking about alternate syntaxes.  I came to wonder if we
even need this declaration.  Users not equipped with proper tools are
sure to screw it up fairly often (usually by omitting the declaration).
Sometimes a user will incorrectly mark an extension namespace as a
property namespace. Presumably such errors are simply ignored by the
underlying layer.  If so, then inadvertently marking ALL extension
namespaces as properties will probably not cause severe problems.  If we
simply make all extension namespaces property namespaces by default, we
don't need to declare anything.  The underlying layer would pick off
those properties that made sense to it.

I'm sure Glen will have something to say about this ;-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:36 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Generic Property Processor Proposal That Achieves
Readability
> and Validation
> 
> 
> Small correction. The example syntax should be:
> 
> <wsdl:propertySchema
> namespace="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/"/>
> 
> and NOT:
> 
> <wsdl:propertySchema
> namespace="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/features/action/Action"/>
> 
> -- Arthur Ryman
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 17:19:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:24 GMT