RE: wsdl:include semantics is different from xs:include

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment LC92
[1].  The Working Group agreed the difference in transitivity is a
mistake and agreed to change the text:

  "Components in directly included descriptions become part of the
  component model of the including description. Directly included means
  that component inclusion is not transitive; components included by 
  one of the included documents are not available to the original 
  including document unless the are included directly by that 
  document."

To:

  "Components in the transitive closure of the included WSDL documents
  become part of the Description component of the including WSDL
  document." 

You can view the resolution in context at [2].  If we don't hear
otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC92
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/#includes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 12:08 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: wsdl:include semantics is different from xs:include
> 
> 
> [On behalf of the XML Schema WG]
> 
> WSDL Part 1 says: "The WSDL include element information item is
> modeled
> after the XML Schema include element information item (see [XML
> Schema:
> Structures], section 4.2.3 "References to schema components in the
> same
> namespace"). "
> 
> ...and...
> 
> "Specifically, it can be used to include components from WSDL
> descriptions
> that share a target namespace with the including description.
> Components in
> directly included descriptions become part of the component model of
> the
> including description. Directly included means that component
> inclusion is
> not transitive; components included by one of the included documents
> are not
> available to the original including document unless the are included
> directly by that document. " -
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#includes
> 
> We have some comments based on our general experience with composition
> matters.
> 
> These two WSDL statements are to some extent contradictory. In fact,
> XML
> schema inclusions are effectively transitive. The XML schema model is
> that a
> single schema (I.e. set of components) is composed from the transitive
> closure of the included documents (as well as, in our case, redefined
> documents, documents obtained through schemaLocation hints on an
> import or
> in the instance, supplied on a command line, etc.) QName references
> are
> uniformly resolved within this combined schema, regardless of the
> source of
> the definition or the identity of the file containing a QName
> reference.
> 
> It would be nice if WSDL composition worked like XML Schema
> composition. If
> you decide to keep it as it is, we would like to make clear that WSDL
> mechanism is indeed different than XML Schema, and suggest that any
> comparisons you draw between the two be a bit clearer and more
> accurate.
> 
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com
> http://www.webmethods.com/

Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 19:44:41 UTC