RE: [wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

Hi Ian,

Sorry I wasn't on the call on Monday but the resolution for issue 50
that you list below looks reasonable to me. On the other hand, your
suggestion to merge all schemas from all WSRF specs really worries me if
I understand what you are proposing. Would this mean that if I want to
implement for example only WS-RP I would be provided a schema that
includes a lot of extra elements that I don't understand (from WS-RL,
WS-SG...) and I should ignore them? If this is the case, I am a big -1
to this. There are very good reasons for splitting WSRF in multiple
specs and that split includes a schema doc for each spec.

William

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:36 AM
To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?





Related to issues 50 ("WSRF50: Faults common to multiple specs in one
namespace ") and 81 ("WSRF81: recommendation to change WSDL documents"),
I would like to suggest that we collapse the schema for RP, RL, SG and
BF into a single document that can be imported into each WSDL.

On the telecon this week, we resolved issue 50: "WSRF50: Faults common
to multiple specs in one namespace "
with a recommendation to move the definition of the 'ResourceUnknown'
fault from WSRF-RP to the WS-Resource spec. A new schema document,
referenced from the WS-Resource specification, would be needed to
contain the type definition of this fault. This fault may be returned by
a WS-Resource following any message exchange, not just those protocol
messages defined in the WSRF specs.

Rather than create a new schema document, we could consider refactoring
our existing ones by collapsing the RP, RL, SG and BF schema into a
single WSRF schema document.

Any opinions?

Ian