WSDLBinding as a DocExchange subelement within CPP and CPAs

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Monica reminded me to put a link into the working proposal on how to add
a WSDLBinding (1.1 or 2.0) to CPPA profiles or agreements.  This is
still
under construction but the basic approach is sketched in:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-cppa-ws/200308/msg00000.html


The CPPA 2.0 schema is being updated to 2.x so that all previous 2.0
instances validate (possibly after a namespace repair), but we add in
new alternatives for key extension points. 

The key extension points are for EIIs of ProcessSpecification,
DocExchange (actually the children (and their descendents) of
DocExchange
(which are siblings of ebXMLSenderBinding and ebXMLReceiverBinding)),
Transport, and so on. 

In the current approach, WSDL definitions for portType/interface can be
dropped into the CPPA containers "as-is" (they can be in-line or use
wsdl:include). Other wsdl:definitions can contain information
potentially in conflict with some CPA values, so the rules for resolving
those potential conflicts are still being defined. (We also plan to have
SOAP1.1Binding and SOAP1.2Binding elements for using SOAP without WSDL.)

We are using the substitution group technique for adding in alternatives
at extension points, which tools are still catching up with, and which
still yields some gotchas when substitutions are type checked (as they
are supposed to be) because of some conflicts between simple type
restrictions and rules disallowing non-facet-based restrictions on
simple types. There are ways around this hodge-podge and we will fairly
soon commit to a workaround.

Monica, that is probably more than is necessary to know for working on
BPSS, but it will give TC members some information pertinent to our
chartered scope of maintaining alignment with other ebXML
specifications.