Re: [wsrp] Describing TC-defined extensions

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Since the QName describes both the syntax
(types) and semantics of the extension, I don't see how it could be valid
for a Producer to "overload" or reuse a QName for a proprietary
extension. Even if the intent is to simply extend the types to send additional
data, a new QName should be defined. For such cases, it is straightforward
to say that both the base and extended QNames are supported.

Rich

Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>

11/14/2006 11:15 PM

To	OASIS WSRP TC <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[wsrp] Describing TC-defined extensions

As we are working on extensions, one question to address
is whether 
there is a need for Producers to describe all the types used for these
well-known extensions beyond saying that it supports the extension by 
the QName.

I'm bringing up this question since the TC is defining QNames for these
extensions, and consumers supporting the extension should have no 
trouble understanding the types used for that extension. The only 
exception I see is when a producer is overloading the extension QName 
for its own proprietary extensions.

Subbu
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries
 and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted
 and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.