- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:31:17 -0700
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:22 PM > To: Arthur Ryman; Martin Gudgin > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import > > Arthur & Gudge, <SNIP/ > > I think it would be considerably clearer if the component model for a > "WSDL 2.0 document"*** (see below) would consist of all and > *only* those > components that are supposed to be visible to that WSDL 2.0 document > (which in the A-imports-B-imports-C example would include components > that originated from B but NOT those that originated from C). > Is there > some reason why you think this approach would be inadequate? Well, it would mean that some of the components of B would be 'incomplete' because the components from C that they refer to would be missing. I wonder if what we actually have is a component model for the root which includes imported components and a separate component model for each imported namespace (recurse as necessary). Gudge
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 00:31:21 UTC