RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

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
> 
> 
> 
>