Hi Ron, Ugo, Kris,
Yes, I agree with you.
I was referring to the examples not using it and that the spec wording
should change to support it because as it stands now it doesn't :)
-Rania
Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> Rania,
>
> In XPath 1.0 a function name is an (XML) qualified name (see here
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#NT-FunctionName>.) Thus the prefix must be
> bound to a namespace URI. I think we are all in agreement here.
>
> Should I open an issue, so that we can start the machinery up to
> add a "prefixes" section at the beginning of the spec?
>
> -Ron
>
> rkhalaf wrote:
>
>> Hi Ugo, Kris, Ron,
>>
>> My impression is also that is the prefix in the xpath funcs is fixed
>> to the actual "bpws" string.
>>
>> The spec says that's associated to the namespace but not that it
>> must be defined
>> "The extensions are defined in the standard BPEL4WS namespace
>> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/". The prefix
>> "bpws:" is associated with this namespace."
>>
>> Also, the examples in the spec do NOT define that prefix in the BPEL
>> samples, although they do define it in the associated WSDL files when
>> defining propertyAliases etc.
>>
>> It is not used in the schema to refer to the xpath functions or fault
>> names, but it is used there to qualify the BPEL elements (partner,
>> invoke, etc ) ..
>>
>> We should ask spec team for clarification on this since if it does
>> need to be defined then the spec wording should change. I wonder why
>> they didn't tie it to that to start with.
>>
>> Rania
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
>>
>>> Ugo Corda wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, bpws should be defined as:
>>>>
>>>> xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/"
>>>> (see Appendix D - XSD Schemas).
>>>>
>>>> Examples in the spec also define it that way (see for example 16.1.2).
>>>>
>>>> I think the spec uses "bpws" in many places as a shortcut for
>>>> referring
>>>> to the namespace URI, without mentioning the fact that the "bpws"
>>>> prefix
>>>> is arbitrary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, such practice has become commonplace in XML-based specs that
>>> use more than one such namespace. Such specs usually contain a list
>>> of all the prefixes and namespaces used in XML fragments thoughout
>>> the spec, to avoid confusion, or overly length XML fragments.
>>>
>>> Should we suggest to our editing team that they should include such
>>> a list at the beginning of the WS-BPEL spec?
>>>
>>> -Ron
>>>
>>>> Ugo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:] Sent: Monday,
>>>>> March 15, 2004 3:35 PM
>>>>> To: 'bpel implementation'
>>>>> Cc: Ugo Corda
>>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question about the validity of the loan approval BPEL; the
>>>>> loan approval example makes a number of called to
>>>>> bpws:getVariableData, but the prefix "bpws" is not mapped to any
>>>>> namespace.
>>>>> I have not found a definite answer to this in the specification,
>>>>> where it is simply stated that the prefix is "bpws" is associated
>>>>> with the BPEL namespace (section 9.1), but it is not mentioned
>>>>> whether this is an assumption that applies to all BPEL files
>>>>> (without having to do an
>>>>> xmlns:bpws="...") or just to the examples in the specification. I
>>>>> would like to think that any namespace prefix should be properly
>>>>> defined before used, even those that are used to refer to
>>>>> extension functions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kristofer
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:] Sent: Monday, March
>>>>> 15, 2004 4:33 PM
>>>>> To: Kristofer Agren; bpel implementation
>>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. The Partner Link Type Schema specifies
>>>>> elementFormDeafult="qualified", so all the local names must be
>>>>> qualified. The syntax specified in BPEL sec. 7.1 is also quite clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ugo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:50 PM
>>>>>> To: 'bpel implementation'
>>>>>> Subject: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There appears to be an error in the loanapproval.wsdl and
>>>>>> loanapprovalBound.wsdl files; the <portType> element under
>>>>>> <plnk:role> is not in the partner link namespace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <plnk:role name="assessor">
>>>>>> <portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/>
>>>>>> </plnk:role>
>>>>>> Maybe I am missing something, but it should it not be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <plnk:role name="assessor">
>>>>>> <plnk:portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/>
>>>>>> </plnk:role>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kristofer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
