[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrf] Proposed resolution to WSRF 174 - references to instances of MDDs
When we discussed changing the metadata descriptor property to an EPR, I understood Dave's use case to mean that this EPR would reference a WSRF-RP conformant resource which possibly exposes GetRP, GetMRP, SetRP, QueryRP, etc. As an EPR to a resource, I see no need to add extra attributes to this property. If you want to access it, use the WS-Addressing rules to use an EPR to format a message to the resource and send it using one of the supported operations. I also do not think that just because we have an EPR to such a resource that it has any effect upon the shape of an RMD doc. I think an RMD doc still contains a Definitions element with several MetadataDescriptor child elements. I think an RMD doc is retrievable via some other means such as HTTP GET or WS-MetadataExchange. However, (an assumption on my part) I believe the resource referenced by the above described property should either be just a MetadataDescriptor element, or something else morphed from the contents of a MD element. There are certainly a lot of benefits to having the resource properties document for the metadata be <rmd:MetadataDescriptor/> straight out of the schema for RMD. The downside is that parts of this resource are only accessible via GetResourcePropertyDocument and QueryResourceProperties - both optional operations. I think the ways to solve this are to either require that GetRPD be supported for this type of resource, or to move the root element attributes into child elements of the root. The move of attributes could either be done just for the stand-alone resource or for both the resource and the RMD doc. Bryan -----Original Message----- From: Tim Banks [mailto:tim_banks@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:46 AM To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Fw: [wsrf] Proposed resolution to WSRF 174 - references to instances of MDDs Ian's initial proposal [1] was for the following type to be used in a ResourceProperty <xsd:complexType name="MetadataDescriptorRefType" > > <xsd:complexContent> > <xsd:extension base="wsa:EndpointReferenceType"> > </xsd:extension> > </xsd:complexContent> > </xsd:complexType> and for this type to be used in a resource Property in place of the current type which has attributes: /wsrmd:MetadataDescriptorRef/@name /wsrmd:MetadataDescriptorRef/@metadataDescriptorLocation ( which is a list of Pairs of URIs) As it currently stands, the proposal needs more information: it needs the name of a metadataDescriptor element within the Definitions that are referenced by the EPR. However, this would look strange, because only one MDD element is used per WS Resource instance; why does the resource property for that instance point at a document that contains extraneous MDDs? We have a few of ways to go that could straighten out the picture. a) Add the "name" back into the MetadataDescriptorRefType and let the client parse the document to find the right MDD. As I said, this looks strange. b) Make the EPR point at a MDD - except that the MDD currently gets its namespace from the targetnamespace on the enclosing Definitions element. This doesn't sound good. c) Make the EPR point at a Definitions element that contains only the MDD of interest - that is, it's a filtered view of the complete Definitions, but does that matter? I think it is a trap waiting to catch people out, since the schema checkers can't police the restriction. d) Make the EPR point at a new "DefinitionsRP" element that contains only the MDD of interest and carries a targetnamespace attribute - that is, it's the same as the Definitions except that it has a "maxOccurs=1" for the child MDD elements. *This looks like the cleanest option to me* e) Constrain the Definitions element to always contain a single MDD. This simplifies the whole thing, but what function does the name attribute on the metadata descriptor have? Are we saying that it's redundant, and all MDDs should be in their own distinct namespaces? Or, are there to be multiple Definitions elements in different files, all using the same namespace, in which case the MDD "name" is still useful, but allows the possibility of getting name collisions. In any case, we would have to remove the attribute of the WSDL portType which currently indicates a name - that information is redundant, since the metadatadescriptorLocation would point at a definitions element and its contained metadatadescriptor. Regards, Tim Banks. [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/200604/ msg00015.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]