RE: importing docs in the same namespace

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:29 AM
> To: David Orchard; Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
> > Sent: 04 October 2002 19:06
> > To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
> > Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> > 
> > 
> > BEA really likes the idea of splitting the interface and impl 
> > parts more strongly.  Ideally, they would even be separate 
> > schemas so that one could validate them strictly.  
> 
> So, message and portTypes in one place, bindings and services in
> another?
> 

Yup.  Add in PortReferences, and you could do some pretty interesting things
with interoperable static interfaces definition and dynamic addressing.

> > As in, a 
> > workflow language that describes the relationships between 
> > abstract things shouldn't be allowed to have implementation info.  
> > 
> > BTW, one of the hopes of XInclude was to obviate the need for 
> > so darned many *:include syntaxes with their own specialized 
> > parsing rules.  What was the rationale for not using Xinclude 
> > for this functionality?  Given Jonathon's leadership on 
> > XInclude, I'm sure there are very valid reasons.  I'm just 
> > curious what they are.  
> 
> Oh, you CAN use XInclude. WDSL is Infoset based so if you build a WSDL
> infoset using XInclude you're fine ( arguably we can't tell 
> whether you
> did that or not... )
> 

Agreed I can use XInclude.  But without making it - or something like it - a
normative part of wsdl, how do I get interop?  Sure, my WSDL parser might
support XInclude, but if yours doesn't then we don't have interop.   

> > sigh.  The endless debate on how to do linking and references 
> > in XML continues....
> 
> Remember, if you see a light at the end of the tunnerl, 
> you're about to
> get crushed by an oncoming train!
> 

That's always so ominous when coming from somebody who's email address ends
in microsoft.com.  

Cheers,
Dave