RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Hi Rania,

I don't think the intent of the spec is to change the namespace rules as
they apply to any XML document. These rules require that a namespace
prefix be declared in XML documents using it, and they also state that
the prefix chosen is arbitrary.

As Ron mentioned, many XML specs define prefixes for various namespaces
at the beginning, and then use them throughout. But that is just a
shorthand type of convenience for writing the spec, not an implication
that those prefixes are fixed (or that they don't need to be declared).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rkhalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:46 AM
> To: Ron Ten-Hove
> Cc: Ugo Corda; Kristofer Agren; bpel implementation
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
> 
> 
> Hi Ugo, Kris, Ron,
> 
> My impression is also that is  the prefix in the xpath funcs 
> is fixed to 
> the actual "bpws" string.
> 
> The spec says that's associated to the namespace but  not 
> that it must 
> be defined
> "The extensions are defined in the standard BPEL4WS namespace 
> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/";. The prefix 
> "bpws:" is associated with this namespace."
> 
> Also, the examples in the spec do NOT define that prefix in the BPEL 
> samples, although they do define it in the associated WSDL files when 
> defining propertyAliases etc.
> 
>  It is not used in the schema to refer to the xpath functions 
> or fault 
> names, but it is used there to qualify the BPEL elements (partner, 
> invoke, etc ) ..
> 
> We should ask spec team for clarification on this since  if 
> it does need 
> to be defined then the spec wording should change. I wonder why they 
> didn't tie it to that to start with.
> 
> Rania
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> 
> > Ugo Corda wrote:
> >
> >>Yes, bpws should be defined as:
> >>
> >>xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/";
> >>(see Appendix D - XSD Schemas).
> >>
> >>Examples in the spec also define it that way (see for 
> example 16.1.2).
> >>
> >>I think the spec uses "bpws" in many places as a shortcut for 
> >>referring to the namespace URI, without mentioning the fact 
> that the 
> >>"bpws" prefix is arbitrary.
> >>  
> >>
> > Yes, such practice has become commonplace in XML-based 
> specs that use
> > more than one such namespace. Such specs usually contain a 
> list of all 
> > the prefixes and namespaces used in XML fragments thoughout 
> the spec, 
> > to avoid confusion, or overly length XML fragments.
> >
> > Should we suggest to our editing team that they should 
> include such a
> > list at the beginning of the WS-BPEL spec?
> >
> > -Ron
> >
> >>Ugo
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:kagren@pakalert.com]
> >>>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:35 PM
> >>>To: 'bpel implementation'
> >>>Cc: Ugo Corda
> >>>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Another question about the validity of the loan approval
> >>>BPEL; the loan approval example makes a number of called to 
> >>>bpws:getVariableData, but the prefix "bpws" is not mapped to 
> >>>any namespace. 
> >>>
> >>>I have not found a definite answer to this in the
> >>>specification, where it is simply stated that the prefix is 
> >>>"bpws" is associated with the BPEL namespace (section 9.1), 
> >>>but it is not mentioned whether this is an assumption that 
> >>>applies to all BPEL files (without having to do an
> >>>xmlns:bpws="...") or just to the examples in the 
> >>>specification. I would like to think that any namespace 
> >>>prefix should be properly defined before used, even those 
> >>>that are used to refer to extension functions?
> >>>
> >>>Kristofer
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> >>>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:33 PM
> >>>To: Kristofer Agren; bpel implementation
> >>>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
> >>>
> >>>I agree. The Partner Link Type Schema specifies
> >>>elementFormDeafult="qualified", so all the local names must 
> >>>be qualified. The syntax specified in BPEL sec. 7.1 is also 
> >>>quite clear.
> >>>
> >>>Ugo
> >>>
> >>>    
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:kagren@pakalert.com]
> >>>>Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:50 PM
> >>>>To: 'bpel implementation'
> >>>>Subject: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>There appears to be an error in the loanapproval.wsdl and 
> >>>>loanapprovalBound.wsdl files; the <portType> element under 
> >>>><plnk:role> is not in the partner link namespace:
> >>>>
> >>>>  <plnk:role name="assessor">
> >>>>    <portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/>
> >>>>  </plnk:role>   
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe I am missing something, but it should it not be:
> >>>>
> >>>>  <plnk:role name="assessor">
> >>>>    <plnk:portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/>
> >>>>  </plnk:role>   
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Kristofer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      
> >>>>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >
> 
> 
>