[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
The semantics we (and also WSDL and essentially XSD afaik) rely upon are that the process definition is dependent on a set of external definitions that we explicitly declare through the import element. Whether XSD uses the abstraction of virtual inlining into the importing document is essentially irrelevant for us. So I think that introducing a new element name to do essentially the same would be a mistake and not serve our users well. Paco "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> .com> cc: Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote 04/01/2005 04:11 PM > Q: Should we use the XML element name 'import'? > Import implies that the files that are being pointed to are > included in the BPEL definition. But strictly speaking that > isn't the case since BPEL does not support in-line WSDL or > XML Schema definitions. Shouldn't the name be more > descriptive, such as 'associate'? > > A: Import does not usually imply that files are "included" in > the BPEL definition - that is "include" as in XSD and WSDL > 2.0; import implies that definitions from the referenced > namespaces are used by the importing document. Since that is > what we are doing here (albeit crossing XML > dialects) I propose we keep the "bpel:import" element name. > Fewer new concepts is better. I don't agree with your characterization of "import". In WSDL 1.1, import is clearly an in-lining mechanism. (I prefer not to talk about WSDL 2.0, since the exact meaning of import is still being debated). In XML Schema, the import is a logical in-lining, in the sense that the schema components coming from the imported schemas become integral part of the pool of schema components corresponding to the importing schema. [from Schema1, sec. 4.2.3: "The *schema components* (that is {type definitions}, {attribute declarations}, {element declarations}, {attribute group definitions}, {model group definitions}, {notation declarations}) of a schema corresponding to a <schema> element information item with one or more <import> element information items must include not only definitions or declarations corresponding to the appropriate members of its [children], but also, for each of those <import> element information items for which clause 2 above is satisfied, a set of *schema components* identical to all the *schema components* of I"]. Given that BPEL does not follow in-lining semantics, I would prefer if a different term were used. If we decide to reuse the same term "import", I think we should define it in our own namespace (no reuse of xsd:import or wsdl:import), and we should clearly define our own semantics without referring to the semantics of xsd:import and wsdl:import. Ugo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]