- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:47:17 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507E8619E@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
The WG resolved this issue (LC131 [1]) as suggested. I accept the resolution. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC131 ________________________________ From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:14 PM To: WS-Description WG Subject: FW: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification An editorial matter I noticed while doing some WS-A work. The WS-A WG is treating this as editorial. I suggest we incorporate the statement into 1.4.8 as below. ________________________________ From: Jonathan Marsh Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:16 PM To: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification Hold, on just found WSDL 2.0 abusing its own notation [1]! I now propose we add the following statement to our notational conventions: This spec uses the notational convention for BNF Pseudo-schemas defined in [WDSL 2.0 section 1.4.8]. And ask WSDL to add this statement to 1.4.8: Elements with simple content are conventionally assigned a value which corresponds to the type of their content, as defined in the normative schema. [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Prop erty_value_element ________________________________ From: Jonathan Marsh Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:07 PM To: 'public-ws-addressing@w3.org' Subject: RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification I had an action to look into these notational conventions. I also see the issue has been closed as editorial, so I propose this as simply direction to the editors (with Umit's agreement). The notational convention in WSDL 2.0 [1] doesn't support using type names for element content (it only defines it for attributes). So that doesn't help us determine whether the type is the type of the element, or the type of the content. RelationshipType, having an attribute, implies the type applies only to the content, and I think this is a good thing since it is consistent with allowing attribute extensibility. I suggest we add the following statement to our notational conventions: WSDL 2.0 defines a notational convention for BNF Pseudo-schemas [WDSL 2.0 section 1.4.8]. This specification extends that syntax to assign elements with simple content a value which corresponds to the type of their content, as defined in the normative schema. The notation in 2.2 would become: <wsa:EndpointReference> <wsa:Address>xs:anyURI</wsa:Address> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:EndpointReference> And the notation in 3.1 would become: <wsa:MessageID>xs:anyURI</wsa:MessageID> <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="xs:anyURI"?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> <wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> <wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> <wsa:From> <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:From> <wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:FaultTo> <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:FaultTo> I don't think it would be too abusive of the notation to also indicate the cardinality of each of these elements, even though they appear at the top level as follows: <wsa:MessageID>xs:anyURI</wsa:MessageID> ? <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="xs:anyURI"?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> * <wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> ? <wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> <wsa:From> ? <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:From> <wsa:ReplyTo> ? <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:FaultTo> ? <wsa:Address/> <wsa:ReferenceParameters /> ? <wsa:Metadata /> ? </wsa:FaultTo> I also note that this notation doesn't deal with extension attributes and elements either way. The schema itself of other places in the spec seem reasonable places to look for that level of detail. [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#bnfp seudoschemas ________________________________ From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:04 PM To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org Subject: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification This is an editorial comment. WSD wg has adopted a BNF style for designating pseudo schemas and used in WSDL 2.0 specifications consistently. The definition is available in the current WSDL 2.0 Core Language specification [1], in section 1.4.8. Using this style differentiates a pseudo schema from an actual example that contains a concrete schema or a document fragment. Further, it improves the readibility of the pseudo schemas. The values of attributes and elements are designated by schema types in italics when actual values are not used. I propose the wg to adopt the same pseudo schemas style to improve the readability of Example 2.1 and Example 3.1 in the WS-Addressing Core Specification [2] and whenever pseudo schemas are needed in the future for other WS-Addressing specs. I recommend referring to WSDL 2.0 Core Language specification for examples throughout. As an example, Example 3.1 states the following: <wsa:MessageID> xs:anyURI </wsa:MessageID> <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="..."?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> <wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> <wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> <wsa:From>endpoint-reference</wsa:From> <wsa:ReplyTo>endpoint-reference</wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:FaultTo>endpoint-reference</wsa:FaultTo> By adopting the style, xs:anyURI would be in italics, "endpoint-reference" should be replaced by wsa:EndpointReferenceType in italics. <wsa:MessageID> xs:anyURI </wsa:MessageID> <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="..."?>xs:anyURI</wsa:RelatesTo> <wsa:To>xs:anyURI</wsa:To> <wsa:Action>xs:anyURI</wsa:Action> <wsa:From>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:From> <wsa:ReplyTo>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:FaultTo>wsa:EndpointReferenceType</wsa:FaultTo> Thanks, --umit [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#bnfpseudoschemas <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#bnfpseudoschemas> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 17:47:34 UTC