- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:20:36 -0500
- To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF03304535.742330B7-ON85257283.0026469B-85257283.00285782@ca.ibm.com>
Amy, The WSDL 1.1 <import> is modelled on XSD <import> so you don't use it to import the same namespace. The example 2 in the spec [1] shows splitting a document into two different namespaces. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 02/13/2007 04:21 PM To Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com> cc www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject Re: Comments on WSDL 1.1 Element Identifiers One comment: Jonathan Marsh wrote: > My claim that imports and includes make designating a WSDL element difficult > are false to because is no include in WSDL 1.1, and WSDL 1.1 imports require > a namespace. There will thus be a 1-1 correspondence between a WSDL 1.1 > document and a particular target namespace. Err, I don't believe that this is the case. Specifically, it is possible (and in fact an example is given in the WSDL 1.1 specification) to "partition" a WSDL into pieces, all of which have the same namespace. In other words, a WSDL 1.1 document can import another WSDL 1.1 document that has the same namespace as the importing document, and the practice is more or less recommended in the WSDL 1.1 specification as a means of modularizing definitions. WSDL 1.1 does not, as I understand it, specify behavior in cases in which an import redefines an existing definition, if those definitions differ. Consequently, while it may be possible to create ambiguous pointers due to the multi-purpose import/include/dessert-wax nature of WSDL 1.1 import, that ambiguity is going to reflect ambiguity within the set of documents. Arguably, broken pointers are better suited for broken documents than working ones. Right? :-) Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 07:20:47 UTC