|
Hello,
If the
sample does contain the root element with namespace declarations, it should
present the omission of namespaces declarations with ... or list all required.
In case of detached (functional) samples, it is of course required to be
declared. Not sure if Kristofer was refering to the spec or to the sample
files from uc?
Greetings
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
|