W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2006

Discussion on issue 3599

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:44:24 +0900
Message-ID: <45249BB8.8090007@w3.org>
To: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

This is my action item 121 "Felix to Start a mail thread on the
discussion between Ashok, PLH and Felix on issue 3599"
http://www.w3.org/2006/10/04-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01 .

Background: At the September f2f I described several issues as "out of
scope", see [1]. Issue 3599 [2] was one of them.
After I had left the f2f early, this issue was discussed [3]. The
proposal from Ashok, to use fragment IDs for the external attachment,
brought up the problem that there is no mime type for WSDL 1.1. defined,
and it is unclear who would define it or what to do with the existing
WSDL 1.1. documents that don't have a mime type.
Using XPointer to refer to WSDL definitions would solve the mime type
problem. Ashok had the AI to consider this proposal [4].

Discussion between Ashok, PLH and Felix: Philippe and me raised a
concern about the XPointer mechanism: it points to WSDL 2.0 components,
and not the XML representation of the WSDL document. For WSDL 1.1.,
there is no clear definition of a component model. We argued that using
XPath instead of XPointer for the WSDL 1.1. external attachment would
make it clear that we refer to the XML representation, and there would
be no need to define a component model for WSDL 1.1.
One example difference between the component model in WSDL 2.0 and the
XML representation is that the former takes import/include into account,
while the latter doesn't.
Ashok had pointed out that there is not much difference between the
XPath and XPointer syntax and proposed to use the syntax he had proposed
for referring to WSDL 1.1 components [5] (search for "For WSDL 1.1. we
suggest"). Using this syntax would IMO look like operating on the (yet
to be defined) WSDL 1.1 component model and not on the XML representation.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0064.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#item13
[4] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action05
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 05:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:16 UTC