- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:29:21 -0800
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416503837127@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
I doubt it, since the bug is created by WSDL 2.0 wg anyway :-) --umit ________________________________ From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] Sent: Friday, Feb 23, 2007 2:49 PM To: Christopher B Ferris; Yalcinalp, Umit Cc: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 Wouldn't that violate the spirit of our agreement with the WSDL WG? That is, we can do the WSDL 1.1 EIs as long as we do all the EIs. These EIs are listed as WSDL 2.0 CDs, so I'd expect that violates our agreement. Cheers, Dave ________________________________ From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:48 AM To: Yalcinalp, Umit Cc: Ashok Malhotra; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue 4332: WSDL WG comment 2 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 Saturday, 24 February 2007 00:27:24 UTC