(closed) Candidate Recommendation (20070126) Issues List of SAWSDL

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).

We will add such references to XML Schema component models

[meeting minutes]

[email to commenter]

[final notification]

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.

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.

[meeting minutes]

[email to commenter]

[final notification]

* 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).

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.

[meeting minutes]

Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it.

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.

Resolved to give to the implementors to remove reference to WSDL 2.0 from abstract and add mentions of WSDL 1.1 in introduction.

[meeting minutes]

Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it.

The CR talks about a WSDL Attribute Declaration component [1].  WSDL 2.0
doesn't have such a component.  Where is it defined?

remove reference to attribute declaration wsdl component

[meeting minutes]

[email to commenter]

[approval from commenter]

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?

on schema components, we will propagate our annotations in the component model

[meeting minutes]

interface annotation propagation dropped, so only schema components propagate their annotations per earlier resolution

[meeting minutes]

Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it.

We need to clarify sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 wrt propagation from type to elements and attributes of that type.

model reference will propagate from complex and simple types to the element and attribute declarations that use them

[meeting minutes]

Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it.

- Is our interface extension model reference propagation broken?
   - Counterexample - safe interface (only safe operations), when extended,
     need not stay safe

we will drop interface annotation propagation

[meeting minutes]

[email to commenter]

[approval from commenter]

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?

we will change our namespace to follow the form of WSDL 2.0 namespace

[meeting minutes]

Commenter was present at the meeting when the resolution was made, and agreed to it.