Rania,
In XPath 1.0 a function name is an (XML) qualified name (see here.) Thus the
prefix must be bound to a namespace URI. I think we are all in
agreement here.
Should I open an issue, so that we can start the machinery up to
add a "prefixes" section at the beginning of the spec?
-Ron
rkhalaf wrote:
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
|