[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
That's true, but our semantics for import is only a subset of the semantics used by WSDL and XSD, because we don't use the "inlining" aspect which is an integral part of WSDL and XSD import semantics. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:46 AM > To: Ugo Corda > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > 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]