issue 88 - notes from discussion on Aug 10 meeting

This is to document the discussion we held last week
and this week on Paco's latest proposal for 88 so we can proceed when he
returns: 

Three points on transitivity:

Verify Paco agrees with the change proposed by Yaron:
Change:

However, documents (or namespaces) imported by an imported document (or

namespace) are no considered to be transitively imported by the process.

To:

However, documents (or namespaces) imported by an imported document (or

namespace) are not considered to be transitively imported by the process.

The lack of transitivity can cause some interesting issues. For example,

a document D1 could define a type called a:Type. But a:Type's definition

could depend on another type called another:Type which is defined in 

document D2. D1 could include an import for D2 thus making 

another:Type's definition available for use with a:Type.

Now imagine a BPEL process refers to a:Type and imports one and only one

document, D1. By importing D1 the BPEL process can legally refer to 

a:Type. But, the BPEL process could not refer to another:Type even 

though D1 imports D2. This is because transitivity of import is not 

supported by BPEL. Note, however, that D1 can still import D2 and a:Type

can still use another:Type in its definition but the BPEL process cannot

directly refer to another:Type. In order to allow the BPEL process to 

refer to another:Type it would be necessary for the BPEL process to 

directly import document D2.

Suggestion from Monica to add normitive wording on
how transivitity should work:   Schema
definitions defined in the types section of a WSDL document 

>> which is

>> imported by a BPEL process definition are considered to be effectively

>> imported themselves and are available to the process for the purpose
of

>> defining XML Schema variables. However, documents (or namespaces)

>> imported

>> by an imported document (or namespace) are no considered to be

>> transitively

>> imported by the process. 

>

> mm1: Paco, shouldn't we add some 'teeth' to the last statement, such
as:

>

>    "Documents (or namespaces) imported by an imported
document (or

>    namespace) MUST NOT be transitively imported into the
process. "

Address
question from Alex on relationship between transitive and non-transitive
closure and potential conflicts

No Namespace defined:  Prasad still
doesn't understand but is ok with proceeding.  This raised the question
of whether there should be more explicit clarification on what the engine
should do.  

Chris made comment:  We
may need to change the property alias. Property alias is not directly referenced
by BPEL process. Property alias is not referred to or not really referenced.
Should we require including property alias? Property alias is not a name.
Update at Aug 17 meeting from
Chris - this is mostly a wsdl question and he is op with the property alias
reference in the proposal.   

 

Regards, Diane

IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709