[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
That's true, but our semantics for import is only a subset of the
semantics used by WSDL and XSD, because we don't use the "inlining"
aspect which is an integral part of WSDL and XSD import semantics.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:46 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
>
>
> The semantics we (and also WSDL and essentially XSD afaik)
> rely upon are that the process definition is dependent on a
> set of external definitions that we explicitly declare
> through the import element. Whether XSD uses the abstraction
> of virtual inlining into the importing document is
> essentially irrelevant for us. So I think that introducing a
> new element name to do essentially the same would be a
> mistake and not serve our users well.
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ugo Corda"
>
>
> <UCorda@SeeBeyond To:
> Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
> <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> .com> cc:
>
>
> Subject: RE:
> [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
>
> 04/01/2005 04:11
>
>
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Q: Should we use the XML element name 'import'?
> > Import implies that the files that are being pointed to are
> included
> > in the BPEL definition. But strictly speaking that isn't the case
> > since BPEL does not support in-line WSDL or XML Schema definitions.
> > Shouldn't the name be more descriptive, such as 'associate'?
> >
> > A: Import does not usually imply that files are "included"
> in the BPEL
> > definition - that is "include" as in XSD and WSDL 2.0;
> import implies
> > that definitions from the referenced namespaces are used by the
> > importing document. Since that is what we are doing here (albeit
> > crossing XML
> > dialects) I propose we keep the "bpel:import" element name.
> Fewer new
> > concepts is better.
>
> I don't agree with your characterization of "import". In WSDL
> 1.1, import is clearly an in-lining mechanism. (I prefer not
> to talk about WSDL 2.0, since the exact meaning of import is
> still being debated).
>
> In XML Schema, the import is a logical in-lining, in the
> sense that the schema components coming from the imported
> schemas become integral part of the pool of schema components
> corresponding to the importing schema.
>
> [from Schema1, sec. 4.2.3:
> "The *schema components* (that is {type definitions},
> {attribute declarations}, {element declarations}, {attribute
> group definitions}, {model group definitions}, {notation
> declarations}) of a schema corresponding to a <schema>
> element information item with one or more <import> element
> information items must include not only definitions or
> declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its
> [children], but also, for each of those <import> element
> information items for which clause 2 above is satisfied, a
> set of *schema components* identical to all the *schema
> components* of I"].
>
> Given that BPEL does not follow in-lining semantics, I would
> prefer if a different term were used. If we decide to reuse
> the same term "import", I think we should define it in our
> own namespace (no reuse of xsd:import or wsdl:import), and we
> should clearly define our own semantics without referring to
> the semantics of xsd:import and wsdl:import.
>
> Ugo
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
> TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group
> and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]