actually Issue #102 also mentions the inheritance of namespace prefix
declaatios based on the enclosing eleemt's current namespace
this might get addressed in that issue. However since that issue delas with
different typos also, it might be wise to separate the two issues in - well -
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
Should I open an issue, so that we can start
the machinery up to add a "prefixes" section at the beginning of the
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."
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
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.
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
Ugo Corda wrote:
Yes, bpws should be defined as:
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
(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
namespace URI, without mentioning the fact that the "bpws" prefix
Should we suggest to our editing team that they should
include such a list at the beginning of the WS-BPEL spec?
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?
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:33 PM
To: Kristofer Agren; bpel
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan
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
Kristofer Agren [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:50 PM
Subject: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan
There appears to be an error in the
loanapprovalBound.wsdl files; the
<portType> element under <plnk:role> is not in the
partner link namespace:
Maybe I am missing
something, but it should it not be: