Lawrence, I agree with your comment about a single rule, but I suspect this won't be the only example in the spec and if Woden assertion validation is to reflect the spec, it will probably need to verify each assertion separately.
The bit about the tns being dereferencable to a document is not really the issue. My concern was about how to validate the statement that the document "directly or indirectly defines the intended semantics...". In this particular example, we can just agree to ignore warning assertions like this for now and focus on the error (MUST) assertions. But we may still find error assertions that contain similarly challenging statements. Anyway, I'll leave these 3 assertions and do the errors instead. regards, John Kaputin Lawrence Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/02/2008 18:46:24: > Hi John, > > My take is that these three assertions are really just a single assertion. > If a target namespace is dereferencable it should point to a human or > machine processable document. > > As far as implementing assertions, let's stick to the MUST assertions > (i.e. errors). We can try to work in these optional assertions later. > > Lawrence > > > > > > > John Kaputin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 02/14/2008 11:31 AM > Please respond to > [email protected] > > > To > [email protected] > cc > > Subject > Questions on Description assertions > > > > > > > This is probably a question for Arthur, but I'll accept any takers. The > WSDL spec defines these 3 document assertions: > > Description-1001: > The value of the targetNamespace attribute information item SHOULD be > dereferencable.? > > Description-1002: > It SHOULD resolve to a human or machine processable document that > directly or indirectly defines the intended semantics of those components. > ? > > Description-1003 > It MAY resolve to a WSDL 2.0 document that provides service description > information for that namespace.? > > I think I can test the 1001 assertion just by connecting to stream and > seeing if I can get something back. I'm not sure how to test 1002 and > 1003. For 1002, how to check for the 'intended semantics'? For 1003, the > 'WSDL 2.0 document' referred to be the assertion text sounds like the same > > one I'm trying to validate? > > Should we just focus on the Error assertions for now (e.g. those that say > "MUST"), and just document any Warning assertions ("SHOULD", "MAY") that > we ignore? > > regards, > John Kaputin > > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
