OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wsrf] Proposed resolution to WSRF 174 - references to instances of MDDs

If I understand Bryan's proposal, then one could retrieve the MDD name
and interface via a simple GetResourceProperty; however, a GetRP on
Property would still return all the Property elements and the client
would need to parse through these.

Is that correct, Bryan?

Making the MDD the root element of the RP losses the targetnamespace
attribute.  Is that a problem?

Kirk Wilson
Architect, Development
Office of the CTO
603 823-7146

-----Original Message-----
From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:48 AM
To: Murray, Bryan P.
Cc: Tim Banks; wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Proposed resolution to WSRF 174 - references to
instances of MDDs


On 12 Apr 2006, at 01:15, Murray, Bryan P. wrote:

> The downside is that parts of this resource are only accessible via
> GetResourcePropertyDocument and QueryResourceProperties - both  
> optional
> operations. I think the ways to solve this are to either require that
> GetRPD be supported for this type of resource, or to move the root
> element attributes into child elements of the root. The move of
> attributes could either be done just for the stand-alone resource  
> or for
> both the resource and the RMD doc.

I support the later option. If we can shape the RMD document so that  
the minimum implementation of a WS-resource can get at the elements  
using only GetResourceproperty, I think we wind up with a tighter  
match up. It would be advantageous if both versions of the document  
were the same.

> Bryan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Banks [mailto:tim_banks@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:46 AM
> To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Fw: [wsrf] Proposed resolution to WSRF 174 - references to
> instances of MDDs
> Ian's initial proposal [1]  was for the following type to be used in a
> ResourceProperty
>  <xsd:complexType name="MetadataDescriptorRefType" >
>>         <xsd:complexContent>
>>           <xsd:extension base="wsa:EndpointReferenceType">
>>           </xsd:extension>
>>         </xsd:complexContent>
>>       </xsd:complexType>
> and for this type to be used in a resource Property in place of the
> current type which has attributes:
> /wsrmd:MetadataDescriptorRef/@name
> /wsrmd:MetadataDescriptorRef/@metadataDescriptorLocation   ( which  
> is a
> list of Pairs of URIs)
> As it currently stands, the proposal needs more information:  it needs
> the name of a metadataDescriptor element within the Definitions  
> that are
> referenced by the EPR. However, this would look strange, because only
> one MDD element is used per WS Resource instance;  why does the  
> resource
> property for that instance point at a document that contains  
> extraneous
> MDDs?   We have a few of ways to go that could straighten out the
> picture.
> a) Add the "name"  back into the MetadataDescriptorRefType  and let  
> the
> client parse the document to find the right MDD. As I said, this looks
> strange.
> b) Make the EPR point at a MDD  - except that the MDD currently  
> gets its
> namespace from the targetnamespace on the enclosing Definitions  
> element.
> This doesn't sound good.
> c) Make the EPR point at a Definitions element that contains only the
> MDD of interest - that is, it's a filtered view of the complete
> Definitions, but does that matter? I think it is a trap waiting to  
> catch
> people out, since the schema checkers can't police the restriction.
> d) Make the EPR point at a new "DefinitionsRP" element that contains
> only the MDD of interest and carries a targetnamespace attribute -  
> that
> is, it's the same as the Definitions except that it has a  
> "maxOccurs=1"
> for the child MDD elements.  *This looks like the cleanest option  
> to me*
> e) Constrain the Definitions element to always contain a single MDD.
> This simplifies the whole thing, but what function does the name
> attribute on
> the metadata descriptor have?   Are we saying that it's redundant, and
> all
> MDDs should be in their own distinct namespaces?  Or, are there to be
> multiple Definitions elements in different files, all using the same
> namespace, in which case the MDD "name"  is still useful, but  
> allows the
> possibility of getting name collisions.   In any case, we would  
> have to
> remove the attribute of the WSDL portType which currently indicates a
> name
> - that information is redundant, since the metadatadescriptorLocation
> would point at a definitions element and its contained
> metadatadescriptor.
> Regards, Tim Banks.
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrf/email/archives/ 
> 200604/
> msg00015.html

Take care:

       David Snelling David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com
       Fujitsu Laboartories of Europe

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]