RE: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730

Here are my answers to the three outstanding issues:

a) One wrapper or two wrappers.
The WG agreed on one wrapper.
I propose we call the wrapper element wsdlRef used as below

	<wsp:AppliesTo>
           <xxx:wsdlRef>
                   http://example.com.LoanFlow#wsdl.service(LoanFlowService) 
           </xxx:wsdlRef>
      </wsp:AppliesTo> 

The wrapping element xxx:wsdlRef is defined with the following XML Schema fragment.

<xs:element name="wsdlRef" type="anyURI"/>

b) A separate namespace for this element -- YES

c) A separate document for the domain expressions -- YES

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: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:08 AM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu; Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> 
> 
> We need a concrete proposal in order to close out the WSDL 
> external attachment issues (issue 3730 and 3599).
> 
> The Oct 25 WG meeting touched on this thread and agreed that 
> getting the following three questions answered via email 
> would help us develop a concrete proposal for these two 
> issues before the F2F meeting.
> 
> > (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good.
> 
> WG has expressed a preference for ONE wrapper element.  The 
> MIME type of the resource should determine the semantics of 
> the URI.  Asir and others expressed support for this position 
> at the Oct 25 meeting.
> 
> > (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain 
> expressions.
> > Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, 
> > transaction, etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own 
> > namespace names (for instance 
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new 
> namespace 
> > names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this 
> extensibility point.
> 
> WG has not yet decided if they want a separate namespace for 
> this domain expression.
> 
> Pro position:
> - Separates the "domain expression" into a separate namespace 
> and keeps it separate from the main Policy namespace.
> 
> Con position:
> - This might cause people to infer that the material in the 
> second namespace is an "optional" feature that they don't 
> have to implement in order to do WS-Policy.
> 
> > (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external 
> > attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. 
> > There is a clean separation between the external attachment 
> mechanism 
> > and domain expression. To promote these, we suggest 
> documenting these 
> > domain expressions in a separate document (for instance 
> 'Web Services 
> > Policy - Domain Expressions').
> 
> WG has not yet decided if they want a separate document.
> 
> Pro:
> - This would permit the work to advance on its own schedule 
> separate from the Framework and Attachment specs.
> 
> Please express your opinions on items b) and c) above via 
> email before the Nov 1 distributed meeting.
> 
> /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 Asir Vedamuthu
> > Sent: October 18, 2006 11:28 AM
> > To: Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> >
> >
> > Thank you Ashok. There are three other bits on 3730 and 3599:
> >
> > (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good.
> >
> > (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain 
> expressions.
> > Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, 
> > transaction, etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own 
> > namespace names (for instance 
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new 
> namespace 
> > names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this 
> extensibility point.
> >
> > (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external 
> > attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. 
> > There is a clean separation between the external attachment 
> mechanism 
> > and domain expression. To promote these, we suggest 
> documenting these 
> > domain expressions in a separate document (for instance 
> 'Web Services 
> > Policy - Domain Expressions').
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:28 PM
> > To: Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> >
> >
> > Dan:
> > You said ...
> > > ... but it doesn't say what the implied Policy Scopes and Policy 
> > > Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be the same as the Policy 
> > > Scopes and Subjects already defined for WSDL 2.0 attachment.
> >
> > This is a good point.  If I look at the latest Policy 
> Attachment spec 
> > it has a long section on WSDL 2.0 attachment with an extensive 
> > discussion of Policy Subjects and Scopes and merging.  I 
> don't think 
> > we want to repeat this material for the external attachment 
> section.  
> > So, how about we add a paragraph that says something like:
> >
> > The semantics of associating policies with WSDL 2.0 
> components using 
> > the external attachment mechanism are exactly the same as if the 
> > policies had been attached directly to WSDL 2.0 components 
> using the 
> > mechanisms described in section 5. The possible policy scopes are 
> > exactly those allowed in section 5.2 and the calculation of 
> effective 
> > policies is done in exactly the same manner as described in section 
> > 5.4.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:59 AM
> > > To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> > >
> > > Hi Ashok,
> > >
> > > Thanks for sending out a new proposal.  I see that you added a 
> > > wrapper element, which is great.
> > >
> > > The policy attachment spec uses the terms Policy Scope and Policy 
> > > Subject when defining attachment mechanisms.  You attach 
> policies to 
> > > Policy Scopes which associates the attached policy with 
> all Policy 
> > > Subjects within that Policy Scope.  This language is also used to 
> > > describe how policies are merged when multiple policies 
> are attached 
> > > to different scopes containing the same Policy Subject.  This 
> > > proposal describes how to use a WSDL 2.0 component reference as a 
> > > domain expression, but it doesn't say what the implied 
> Policy Scopes 
> > > and Policy Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be the same as 
> > > the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined for WSDL 2.0 
> > > attachment.
> > >
> > > Also the current proposal doesn't use any RFC language, and it 
> > > probably needs to if you want the proposal simply copied into the 
> > > attachment spec.  This could just be an action item for 
> the editors.
> > >
> > > Daniel Roth
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Ashok Malhotra
> > > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:15 PM
> > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > > Subject: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> > >
> > >
> > > As requested, I have defined an element wrapper for the URI 
> > > Reference that indicated the WSDL 2.0 component.
> > >
> > > All the best, Ashok
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 20:06:13 UTC