WSDL WG Comments on WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers

Follows are some comments from the WSDL WG on the WSDL 1.1 Element
Identifiers draft.

 

1.      As in WSDL 2.0 component designators, this spec recommends the
creation of an identifier from the targetNamespace of the WSDL 1.1 document,
and that this identifier can be resolved without considering imports and
includes.  Unlike WSDL 2.0, in WSDL 1.1 the targetNamespace is not required,
and although there is no wsdl11:include, we have some evidence that some
customers have used multiple wsdl11:imports of the same namespace (which can
be the same as the targetNamespace) and different locations to modularlize
their documents - and that a number of popular tools actually support this
"abuse" of import.  These situations demonstrate the limits of the
assumption of a 1-1 correspondence between a WSDL 1.1 document and a WSDL
1.1 targetNamespace.  The spec's recommendation to construct an identifier
using the targetNamespace doesn't work in these situations.  The spec should
at least note situations (edge cases) which conflict with the advice about
creation of an element identifier from the targetNamespace.

 

2.      The inclusion of identifiers for element declarations and type
definitions (which are not WSDL 1.1 elements) seems inappropriate in this
spec.  The presence of schema imports and includes makes associating type
definitions with a particular WSDL document, and thus with a particular
targetNamespace, problematic.  These identifiers don't seem to be required
by WS-Policy Attachment.  We recommend removing them.  If these identifiers
remain, a number of issues related to them should be addressed, including:

a.      How imports and includes affect them.  Are only in-lined schema
elements considered?  Only elements in a schema targetNamespace that is the
same as the WSDL targetNamespace?  If not, which ones?

b.      Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL element identifiers
identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema namespaces.

c.      Correction of the "types" vs. "type definitions" issue, described at
[1].

 

Thank you.

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com