RE: Discussion on issue 3599

Paul:
Let me summarize my current thinking.  Felix and Phillipe will tell us whether they agree.

1. WSDL 1.1 documents are in XML format and have a URI.
2. Various aspects of the WSDL definition set contained in the document 
are represented as XML elements.
3. XPath can be used to identify individual elements.  These elements can then
be used as Policy Subjects using a Domain Expression in the AppliesTo in PolicyAttachment.

This does not address the import/export question.  
Nor does it address the exact XPath syntax to be used.

My observation wrt XPointer is that the syntax is very similar to XPath except for
the shorthand that can be used with properties defined as IDs (barenames).

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: Felix Sasaki; Philippe Le Hegaret; Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Discussion on issue 3599
> 
> 
> Thank you for starting this thread.  Unfortunately I have 
> several questions about your synopsis of your offline 
> dialogue with Ashok and Philippe.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I am confused by this statement.  Wouldn't a use of XPointer 
> have to point to the XML representation since it has no 
> knowledge of anything else?  Can you explain exactly what you 
> mean by the "XPointer mechanism"?
> 
> > For WSDL 1.1., there is no clear definition of a component model.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> See my above questions.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is an extremely important point that has not been made 
> before in the WG discussion.
> 
> > 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").
> > [5] 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0019.html
> 
> The F2F meeting pointed out that using this syntax in [5] 
> combined with the URI of the WSDL file and separated by a 
> hash would look like a fragment identifier which is NOT 
> feasible since there is no MIME type that defines this for 
> WSDL 1.1.  Is Ashok attempting to revert back to that proposal?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I agree that without a WSDL 1.1 component model then any 
> approach is problematic unless there is significant work in 
> the definition of the selected pointer mechanism to specify 
> exactly what part of the WSDL file was being selected.  This 
> sounds like doing the work to define a component model for 
> WSDL 1.1 which is clearly out of scope of our work.
> 
> /paulc
> 
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- 
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> > Sent: October 5, 2006 1:44 AM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Discussion on issue 3599
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Felix
> >
> >
> > [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 17:38:31 UTC