This is the issues list for the 20070126 Candidate Recommendation of the Semantic Annotations for WSDL specification. This list is closed, all issues were resolved and the specification proceeded to Proposed Recommendation.
See also the issues list for SAWSDL issues not pertaining to any LC-or-later publication, the closed last call issues list for the 20060928 Last Call working draft, and the last call issues list for the 20070410 Last Call working draft.
Comments on these issues should be sent to public-ws-semann@w3.org.
ID | Class | Title | Raised By |
---|---|---|---|
none |
ID | Class | Title | Raised By |
---|---|---|---|
none |
ID | Class | Title | Raised By |
---|---|---|---|
none |
ID | Title | Class | Status | Raised By |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | XML Schema component wording | Editorial | Closed | Mary Holstege |
Description:
As you indicated in our call of a couple weeks ago, you do not use the XML Schema formal component model in the relevant sections. Reference to the component model would be preferable, and may make the story cleaner in some respects. One aspect that would be cleared up is a crisp statement of which types and elements may be annotated in which ways. However, in the case of non-schema namespace attributes, the exposition with the transfer syntax is probably easier to grasp, so there is no particular objection to using it. We would like, however, for some kind of reference to the schema component model (perhaps something as simple as "or the corresponing schema component).[email] |
||||
Resolution:
We will add such references to XML Schema component models |
||||
2 | XML Schema: why only put scheme mapping on global elements and types? | Design | Closed | Mary Holstege |
Description:
It was unclear to me why only global elements (and types) could be annotated with lifting and lowering schema mappings. The distinction of global versus local elements is largely a matter of internal schema construction policy so it seems unwise to force particular policies of schema writing.[email] |
||||
Resolution:
Will clarify to Mary that we only do the mapping on whole messages, which can't be described by local element declarations or type definitions. |
||||
3 | annotating operation inputs and outputs | Design | Closed | Ajith Ranabahu |
Description:
* Annotating inputs and outputs of an operation. The specification does not clearly indicate whether this is possible or not but gives a hint about it can be in the WSDL 1.1 section. I believe this should be possible since there is a likelyhood of inputs and outputs of different operations (which have different meanings) pointing to the same schema type/element (Anyway this is open for discussion).[email] |
||||
Resolution:
No change to specification, it was clarified to commenter that inputs and outputs can be annotated, but we don't have a clear motivation that would justify adding a section in the spec. Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it. |
||||
4 | Abstract and intro WSDL20-only? | Editorial | Closed | Jacek Kopecky |
Description:
Raised outside the mailing lists, there was concern that our abstract and introduction seem to be specific to WSDL 2.0, even though we do support WSDL 1.1 as well. We probably should change that. |
||||
Resolution:
Resolved to give to the implementors to remove reference to WSDL 2.0 from abstract and add mentions of WSDL 1.1 in introduction. Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it. |
||||
5 | there is no Attribute Declaration component in WSDL | Editorial | Closed | Jonathan Marsh |
Description:
The CR talks about a WSDL Attribute Declaration component [1]. WSDL 2.0 doesn't have such a component. Where is it defined?[email] |
||||
Resolution:
remove reference to attribute declaration wsdl component |
||||
6 | propagation of annotations in abstract component models | Design | Closed | Jacek Kopecky |
Description:
We propagate modelReference from interface to extending interface (sec 3.1), possibly modelReference from type declarations to elements or attributes of that type (sec 4.1.1, needs clarification), and schemaMappings from type to element (sec 4.2). Should such propagation be represented in the WSDL component model, or should it be handled by the application that uses the model? It makes a difference to parsers - if you ask for the modelReference of an interface, should the parser give you all the modelReference values from all the extended interfaces as well?[email] |
||||
Resolution:
on schema components, we will propagate our annotations in the component model interface annotation propagation dropped, so only schema components propagate their annotations per earlier resolution Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it. |
||||
7 | propagation of annotations from type to elements and attributes of that type | Design | Closed | Jacek Kopecky |
Description:
We need to clarify sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 wrt propagation from type to elements and attributes of that type. [email] |
||||
Resolution:
model reference will propagate from complex and simple types to the element and attribute declarations that use them Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it. |
||||
8 | should interface annotations propagate to extending interfaces? | Design | Closed | Jonathan Marsh |
Description:
(summary from our agenda)
- Is our interface extension model reference propagation broken? - Counterexample - safe interface (only safe operations), when extended, need not stay safe[email] |
||||
Resolution:
we will drop interface annotation propagation |
||||
9 | change of namespace? | Editorial | Closed | Jacek Kopecky |
Description:
the WSDL WG just decided today to change the WSDL namespace from http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl to http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl We have previously discussed the shorter form as well, and we decided to stay with a dated namespace, because WSDL had it. Now it doesn't - should we change our namespace to match WSDL's form, or should we keep it as it is?[email] |
||||
Resolution:
we will change our namespace to follow the form of WSDL 2.0 namespace Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it. |
Copyright © 2006 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.