Re: Clarification on resolutions to CR issues 5 and 9

Dear Joel, please see inside.

On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 13:07 -0500, Joel Farrell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like clarification on the resolution to issue 5 [1]. The
> resolution was to remove the reference to the nonexistent WSDL
> attribute component. But we also said that the XML Schema components
> should be mentioned. So would this be acceptable? 
> 
> In section 4.1.3 (element)
> 
> A non-empty modelReference on a top-level element declaration used in
> WSDL is represented as {model reference} property of the XML Schema
> Element
> Declaration component or the WSDL Element
> Declaration component; the case of an empty modelReference or no
> modelReference at all is represented with an Element Declaration
> component that does not have a {model reference} property.
> 
> In section 4.1.4 (attribute)
> 
> A non-empty modelReference on a top-level attribute declaration used
> in
> WSDL is represented as {model reference} property of the XML Schema
> Attribute
> Declaration component; the case of an empty modelReference or no
> modelReference at all is represented with an Attribute Declaration
> component that does not have a {model reference} property.

I expect that both subsections (and similar ones) should talk about XML
Schema components, and all but attribute should talk about WSDL
components. 

For the XML Schema components, the form they use is "the Element
Declaration Schema Component", and we can prefix that with "XML Schema"
somehow, and link to [.1].

For the WSDL components, the form they use is "Element Declaration
component", which we could prefix with "WSDL", and link to [.2].

Both kinds of links might need to go against the versioned URI, not the
"latest version" ones.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#Element_Declaration_details
[.2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#component-ElementDeclaration

> I would also like clarification on the issue 9 [2] on changing the
> namespace.
> 
> The new WSDL 2.0 namespace is http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl. We decided to
> use the short method to be consistent with it. So, is the new sawsdl
> namespace "http://www.w3.org/ns/sawsdl" or
> "http://www.w3.org/ns/sawsdl#"?

Good question. The RDF form will use the hash anyway, and so does the
RDF mapping of WSDL, so I guess it's not necessary in the XML namespace.
This would suggest dropping the hash (and introducing it in the RDF
mapping section). I'll add this to next telcon agenda.

Best regards,
Jacek

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/CR-20070126#x5
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/CR-20070126#x9
> 
> Thanks,
> Joel
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 16:22:17 UTC