Rania,
Are you referring to the samples in sec. 16.1.3 and 16.2.2? It looks
like those samples should have getVariableData unprefixed, because the
corresponding files declare
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/", i.e. no
prefix is defined.
I think we should raise an issue on the main list about that.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rkhalaf [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:52 AM
> To: Kristofer Agren
> Cc: 'Eckenfels. Bernd'; 'bpel implementation'
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I also checked the samples in the spec version 1.1 from May and the
> draft from November and didn't find ... or a namespace decl
> for bpws
> in the root element.
>
> -Rania
>
> Kristofer Agren wrote:
>
> > Bernd,
> >
> >
> >
> > I was specifically referring to the loan approval example that was
> > part of the file scenarios12-2.zip that Rania uploaded on
> December 2nd.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kristofer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:16 PM
> > To: bpel implementation
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > If the sample does contain the root element with namespace
> > declarations, it should present the omission of namespaces
> > declarations with ... or list all required. In case of detached
> > (functional) samples, it is of course required to be declared. Not
> > sure if Kristofer was refering to the spec or to the sample
> files from uc?
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Bernd Eckenfels
> > Chief Architect
> > --
> > SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
> > Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
> > mailto: - http://www.seeburger.de
> > <http://www.seeburger.de/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 4:55 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda
> > Cc: Kristofer Agren; bpel implementation
> > Subject: Re: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan
> approval example
> >
> > Ugo Corda wrote:
> >
> >Yes, bpws should be defined as:
> >
> >
> >
> >xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/"
> ><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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
