- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:31:19 +0100
- To: 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Begin forwarded message: > From: "Nickolas Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com> > Date: 30 May 2006 19:16:18 BST > To: <matthew@stickledown.com> > Cc: "Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>, "Steve > Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com> > Subject: Re: it is impossible to compare QNames > > Hi Matthew, > > The QName of the /package/relationshipType/roleType/@typeRef references > the field /package/roleType/@name (a NCName). If you > want to enforce the WS-CDL spec rule (quoted below), > then you use the targetNamespace value (a URI) of the WS-CDL package > that the roleType has being defined within and the roleType name > (NCName) > to construct a QName. Then you can do comparisons of the two QNames. > > -- > Nick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com> > To: <matthew@stickledown.com> > Cc: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>; "Nickolas > Kavantzas" > <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>; "Tony Fletcher" > <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com> > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: it is impossible to compare QNames > > >> I'd like to deal with this at the next conf call (Tuesday if >> possible). >> We ought to be able to fix this or provide an sensible answer to >> Matthew. >> >> Cheers >> >> Steve T >> >> On 27 May 2006, at 22:45, Matthew Rawlings wrote: >> >>> >>> This is feedback on the WS-CDL Choreography CR of 2005-11-09. I have >>> been >>> implementing CDL at a bank and have some questions and feedback on >>> the >>> CR. >>> >>> The problem I have with the CR is the XML Schema for WS-CDL requires >>> you to >>> compare a QName type with an NCName type. This comparison is >>> impossible >>> because the QName type does not have equality or ordering defined for >>> it. >>> >>> Section 4.2 of the CDL specification states that field >>> /package/relationshipType/roleType/@typeRef (a QName), must reference >>> the >>> field /package/roleType/@name (a NCName). I took this from the text: >>> 'A >>> relationshipType element MUST have exactly two roleTypes defined. >>> Each >>> roleType is specified by the typeRef attribute within the roleType >>> element. >>> The "QName" value of the typeRef attribute of the roleType element >>> MUST >>> reference the name of a roleType.' >>> >>> Please tell me why the datatype QName was used. I have been unable to >>> work >>> out why QName was used. QName is normally used to reference elements >>> rather >>> than the contents of elements. >>> >>> I have been assuming the word "reference" is as an equality test as >>> defined >>> by XPath 1.0. This should be explicit in the specification. >>> >>> Looking through the mail-list examples (e.g. >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Sep/0001) it >>> seems >>> that QName and NCName are being used in the style of xs:ID and >>> xs:IDREF. Why >>> not just use xs:ID and xs:IDREF? This would also have the benefit of >>> making >>> the constraint that a typeRef must reference a roleType name >>> explicit. >>> Both >>> xs:ID and xs:IDREF are subtypes of xs:NCName. >>> >>> At the very least typeRef and roleType should be some type of string >>> that is >>> comparable, otherwise references cannot be tested. >>> >>> Matthew Rawlings >>> +44 791 539 7824 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 06:31:41 UTC