Re: schemaMapping issues breakdown (issue 6)

John and Kunal,

is there an option C, combining both complexType-level and leaf-level
annotations? I have a feeling that it could be most useful, if an
annotator actually adds them all (in fact, a tool could help a lot
here), but your breakdown to two options might imply that you don't want
to allow this option...

Best regards,

Jacek

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:51 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote:
> We would like to continue allowing modelReferences on complex types.
> Consider an operation that supports PIP 3A4 from RosettaNet. Would we
> like to annotate the input and output at the the complexType level or
> the individual leaf level elements?
> 
> In option A, we annotate at the complexType level.
> 
> <complexType name="OrderRequest"
>    sawsdl:modelReference="Rosetta#PurchaseOrderRequest">
>    <sequence>
>        <element name="globalBusinessIdentifier"  type="xsd:string" />
>        <element name="globalProductIdentifier"  type="xsd:string" />
>        <element name="orderQuantity" type="xsd:int" />
>    </sequence>
> </complexType>
> 
>  In option B, we annotate at the leaf level.
> 
> <complexType name="OrderRequest">
>    <sequence>
>       <element name="globalBusinessIdentifier"  type="xsd:string"
>           sawsdl:modelReference="Rosetta#GlobalBusinessIdentifier"/>
>       <element name="globalProductIdentifier"  type="xsd:string"
>           sawsdl:modelReference="Rosetta#GlobalProductIdentifier"/>
>       <element name="orderQuantity" type="xsd:int"
>           sawsdl:modelReference="Rosetta#OrderQuantity"/>
>    </sequence>
> </complexType>

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 14:13:31 UTC