- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:09:36 -0800
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165037C6C3A@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
Wouldn't the limitation to subjects defined by ws-policy leave the utility of the identifiers for elements/type decls somewhat ambigious from the WS-Policy perspective anyway? --umit ________________________________ From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] Sent: Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 4:03 PM To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 There was never agreement to remove them. We agreed that we would provide a document that faithfully captured identifiers for all WSDL 1.1 elements and then scope the policy attachment using wsdl 1.1 EIs to just the subjects defined by ws-policy. Cheers, Dave ________________________________ From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:51 PM To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org Cc: David Orchard Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 I have the recollection of agreeing NOT to include element/type decls. Thus, I am somewhat confused as to why we still have them in the document. Shortly, +1 to remove them. --umit ________________________________ From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra Sent: Wednesday, Feb 21, 2007 3:38 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Cc: dorchard@bea.com Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 I do not see a usecase for referring to element declarations and type definitions in a WSDL 1.1 document from outside the document. So, I'm happy to see them removed. DaveO, perhaps you had a reason for including these? If so, pray tell. All the best, Ashok ________________________________ From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:09 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4332 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]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0002.html 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. 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: d. 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? e. Clarification in the prose of the spec that WSDL element identifiers identify elements both in the WSDL and Schema namespaces. f. 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>
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 00:07:30 UTC