Guys, I think these assertions are testable.
1. We can certainly test that the namespace URI is deferencible. If not, issue a Warning. 2. If the namespace URI is deferencible then we can do some tests on what we get back. For example, check the mime type. If its html, txt, pdf, or similar type of document, then assume it's human readable. If it's WSDL then do a check that it has the same namespace, otherwise issue a warning. Also, there is a spec called RDDL which extends XHTML. If we get RDDL then we can check that this namespace is actually described, i.e. if RDDL and this namespace is not described in it, issue a warning. We could do similar checks for RDF or OWL documents, i.e. they should be about this namespace. -- Arthur On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:35 PM, John Kaputin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > >
