Issue 4331: WSDL WG comment 1

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4331

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.

/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




________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: February 15, 2007 9:46 PM
To: public-ws-policy-comments@w3.org
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: 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.

2.      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.

3.      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://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com