[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: WSRF-RP docs
Bryan et al.,
I don't think the text you quoted conveys (or implies) what you're
saying it's supposed to. I think it must be referring to the RP doc
schema definition, and not the RP doc. In that case, it would come
closer to making sense, but, IMO, still would not be sufficiently clear.
Coming from someone with above average reading comprehension, if I don't
grasp what the spec is trying to say, I don't think other implementors
will either. I think the spec should be explicit as possible about how
various use cases should be handled by implementations.
I suggest rewording the paragraphs in question in section 5.2 as
follows:
/wsrf-rp:GetResourceProperty/QName
This QName MUST represent the name of a property element that could
legally be contained
in the resource properties document (i.e. the resource properties
document schema
definition must either explicitly contain an element with the given
QName OR it must
contain an xsd:any element).
-----
/wsrf-rp:GetResourcePropertyResponse/{any}
The resource property value, as an XML element, that corresponds to the
QName in the
GetResourceProperty request. Note: in the case where the resource
property document
does not contain a property with the QName specified in the request, if
a) the resource
property document schema definition contains an element with the given
QName, or b)
the definition contains an xsd:any element, the response MUST be an
empty
wsrf-rp:GetResourcePropertyResponse element. If neither a) nor b) is
true, a
InvalidResourcePropertyQName fault MUST be returned.
-----
I suggest rewording the corresponding paragraphs in section 5.3
similarly.
Regards,
Ian
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Murray, Bryan P.
| Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:39 PM
| To: Springer, Ian P.; Treadwell, Jem
| Subject: RE: WSRF-RP docs
|
| Ian,
|
| WSRF-RP draft 05e contains the following text in section 5.2
| (~line 589):
|
| /wsrf-rp:GetResourceProperty/QName
| This MUST correspond to the QName of a resource property
| element child of the root of the WS-Resource's resource
| properties document.
|
| The "MUST" here implies that if you do not do this you will
| receive a fault. If the schema for the prop doc contains
| xs:any and the prop doc does contain the requested element
| not explicit in the schema there will not be a fault. OTOH,
| if the requested element is not present in the prop doc it
| will fault. There is a similar statement in GetMultiple.
|
| Optional elements are covered near line 604 with the
| reference to minOccurs="0".
|
| Bryan
|
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Springer, Ian P.
| Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:13 AM
| To: Treadwell, Jem
| Cc: Murray, Bryan P.
| Subject: RE: WSRF-RP docs
|
| Jem,
|
| I think this is the same version I looked at before posting
| to the list. I don't see any verbage addressing the issue, at
| least not in section 5.2 (GetResourceProperty) or section 5.3
| (GetMultipleResourceProperties). Perhaps the issue was marked
| as closed prematurely..
|
| Thanks,
| Ian
|
| | -----Original Message-----
| | From: Treadwell, Jem
| | Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:41 PM
| | To: Springer, Ian P.
| | Subject: Re: WSRF-RP docs
| |
| | Hi Ian, yes - if you take a look at the process in the top of the
| | issues doc, it gets marked as resolved when we've agreed a
| resolution,
| | and as closed when the doc has been updated (and the update
| accepted).
| | In fact, this one *is* closed - Steve was quoting from an
| old copy of
| | the issues list; the one dated 12/6 does have it as closed. The
| | change is (or should be) made in the 30th November draft of WSRP,
| | which is a publicly-viewable PDF version. I reviewed that version,
| | and Bryan confirmed that the resolutions were done
| correctly before he
| | updated the issues list, but I haven't just been through it
| - I have
| | to get on the
| | road. Are you able to see it? I'm attaching it in case
| not, for any
| | reason.
| |
| | - Jem
| |
| | Springer, Ian P. wrote:
| |
| | >Jem,
| | >
| | >Yep, I'm an observer in all three TCs. I guess I just
| didn't look in
| | >the right place. I checked the latest draft document under
| | the document
| | >store (or what appeared to be from the date) and it did not
| | address the
| | >below issue. When an issue is marked as resolved, shouldn't
| | the spec be
| | >updated to reflect the resolution?
| | >
| | >Thanks,
| | >Ian
| | >
| | >
| | >________________________________
| | >
| | > From: Treadwell, Jem
| | > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 8:27 AM
| | > To: Springer, Ian P.
| | > Subject: Re: WSRF-RP docs
| | >
| | >
| | > Hi Ian,
| | >
| | > This reminds me that I haven't fulfilled my promise to
| | let you know
| | >what changes have been made to WSRF-RP. I'm not reeally
| | sure how to go
| | >about that, since there are many, and since you're posting
| | to the list
| | >I assume you have access to the docs, including the issues list and
| | >the latest public and editors' drafts of the docs. Can you
| | let me know
| | >if you actually need me to do anything for this?
| | >
| | > Thanks, Jem
| | >
| | > Steve Graham wrote:
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | > Hi Ian:
| | > This looks very similar to the situation
| | described for WSRF issue 4:
| | >
| | > Issue WSRF4: GetResourceProperty on property
| | document with xsd:any
| | >
| | > When a property document schema contains an
| | xsd:any element and a
| | >GetResourceProperty message is received for a property QName
| | for which
| | >there is currently no instance, what should be the response?
| | >
| | > One possibility is that a fault message is returned.
| | >This behavior results in some requests for a QName will
| fail at one
| | >time and succeed at some later time if the property has been
| | >subsequently been inserted.
| | >
| | > Another possibility is that an empty message is
| | returned. This
| | >behavior results in all QNames returning successful messages, some
| | >empty, others contain values. This behavior is also
| | consistent with the
| | >Set/Insert behavior where all QNames are accepted.
| | >
| | > GetMultipleResourceProperties has this same issue.
| | >
| | > Specifications
| | >
| | > * * * * *WS-ResourceProperties, Version 1.1,
| | March 5, 2004; sections
| | >5.1 and 5.2, WSDL
| | >
| | > Notes
| | >
| | > sgg: The "any" case is a very interesting one.
| | My gut tells me that
| | >the insert should succeed (as you suggest). My feel is that
| | the Get and
| | >the GetMultiple should fault, as there is no QName defined
| either in
| | >the instance document or (not explicitly) in the RP
| document's type
| | >definition.
| | >
| | > Doug: I'm leaning more towards the Get and
| | GetMultiple should not
| | >fault however. When talking about the other case (the "foo"
| | >one), those shouldn't have faulted (to me) because the query
| | was valid
| | >relative to the schema. In this case (the "any" one) it
| | would be valid
| | >for the same reason - relative to the schema it is valid.
| If it were
| | >not the case then you would either get back data or a Fault
| | depending
| | >on the value of the instance data and that just feels
| wrong. A Fault
| | >should be returned due to invalid input not due to the
| | specific value
| | >of the instance data. That just leads to inconsistent
| | processing rules.
| | >
| | > sgg: although it is true that the "foo" is
| | valid wrt to the any
| | >appearing in the schema, I believe this would be a
| | surprising result.
| | >With the "any", certain mis-spellings like fou instead of
| | foo would not
| | >result in a fault. This is too surprising.
| | >
| | > Proposed Recommendations
| | >
| | > Add statement to sections 5.1 and 5.2
| | indicating that a request to
| | >get a property that is not explicitly defined in the schema for a
| | >property document containing an xsd:any element will result in a
| | >InvalidResourcePropertyQName fault.
| | >
| | > Another alternative is to return no child
| | elements in the
| | >GetResourcePropertiesResponse element.
| | >
| | > Resolution:
| | >http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200410/msg00053.html.
| | >
| | > Status: Resolved since October 18, 2004
| | >
| | > Contact: Steve Graham, Bryan Murray, Doug Davis
| | >
| | > Cross Reference:
| | >
| | >
| | > ++++++++
| | > Steve Graham
| | > (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
| | > STSM, On Demand Architecture
| | > Member, IBM Academy of Technology
| | > <Soli Deo Gloria/>
| | > ++++++++
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >"Springer, Ian P." <ian.springer@hp.com>
| <mailto:ian.springer@hp.com>
| | >
| | >12/09/2004 06:29 PM
| | >
| | >To
| | ><wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org> <mailto:wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
| | >cc
| | >
| | >
| | >Subject
| | >[wsrf] use case that I think needs to be addressed in the RP
| | section of
| | >the spec
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | > If a resource's props doc schema permits open content
| | >(i.e.: xsd:any),
| | > and a GetRP or GetMultipleRPs request is
| | received with a QName that
| | > a) that does not correspond to a prop that the
| | schema explicitly
| | > defines, and
| | > b) does not currently exist in the RP doc,
| | > what form of response should be returned:
| | >
| | > A) an empty GetResourcePropertyResponseElement
| | >
| | > or
| | >
| | > B) an InvalidResourcePropertyQName fault
| | >
| | > ?
| | >
| | > I would think A) is more logical, since if the
| | RP doc schema permits
| | > open content, than any prop QName is valid
| | according to the schema.
| | >It
| | > just happens to be that there are currently no
| | elements with the
| | > specified QName in the RP doc.
| | >
| | > I think the spec needs to address this case for
| | both GetRP and
| | > GetMultiRPs. I think open content use cases
| | need to be better
| | >addressed
| | > for SetRPs Insert/Delete/Update too.
| | >
| | > On a separate note, I find the definition of the
| | > InvalidResourcePropertyQName fault under
| | SetRPs/Delete ("A resource
| | > property QName does not identify a proper
| | number of resource
| | > properties.") to be unclear. What exactly does
| | this mean? That the RP
| | >is
| | > not defined with minOccurs=0 ? If so, why not
| | just say that?
| | >
| | > Regards,
| | > Ian
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | >
| | > --
| | > Jem Treadwell
| | > Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043
| | > 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003
| | > Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell@hp.com
| | >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
| | --
| | Jem Treadwell
| | Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043
| | 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003
| | Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell@hp.com
| |
| |
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]