- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:48:10 -0500
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, dorchard@bea.com, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC2DB599E.8EF5128A-ON8525728A.0045DCDC-8525728A.0046544A@us.ibm.com>
We closed 4045 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4045) by limiting the scope of the URI domain expression, not by removing the element identifiers not pertinent to policy attachment points. However, I too would be fine removing these (since I thought we should have scoped it to the policy attachment points in the first place, precisely because I was concerned that there might be technical issues that would require lengthy discussion to resolve:-) Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris phone: +1 508 377 9295 public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/21/2007 06:51:18 PM: > 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://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > >
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 12:50:05 UTC