W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Importing schemata into WSDL

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: 15 Oct 2002 12:07:31 -0400
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1034698052.10221.10.camel@xerom>

In fact, I think this should be treated more or less as an extensibility
element.  If my processor relaxes, then I can use relaxing syntax to
pull in a schema.  If it sox-hops, use soxy syntax.  And so on. 
Presumably, each schema type other than the default would define:

one or more attributes on message, to point at a type definition.
an element to be used as a child of types indicating import information.

Presumably, these extensions would be defined in a concise document
("Using Relax NG with SOAP"), which would gain support for
standardization by adoption pre-standard.

Amy!
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:12, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> Oh, I think that xsd:import is used ONLY for XSD schemas. If we want to
> pull in Relax NG schemas then that should be done with a different
> element. Given people would need a new attribute on wsdl:part anyway, in
> order to refer to Relax NG constructs, it doesn't seem too burdensome to
> coin another element.
> 
> Gudge
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Mullen [mailto:donmullen@tibco.com] 
> > Sent: 15 October 2002 06:09
> > To: Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; WS Description WG
> > Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I think this works well, and is what I had in mind as 
> > option #3 [1]. Upon reflection, I don't think we need 
> > anything indicating what kind of schema is being imported.  
> > That information would be available in the XML file (if 
> > location used) or already effectively processed and available 
> > by the schema cache.
> > 
> > It seems slightly strange to use the XML Schema namespace 
> > <import> to pull in a Relax NG schema or some other schema 
> > language, but it works, and most processors are going to 
> > support XML Schema (perhaps exclusively).
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Oct/0051.html
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:57 PM
> > To: Don Mullen
> > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; WS Description WG
> > Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> > 
> > I've been thinking a bit more about this. How about
> > 
> > <wsdl:types>
> >   <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/foo' />
> >   <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/bar' />
> > 
> >   <xs:schema targetNamespace='http://example.org/baz' >
> >     <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/quux' />
> >   </xs:schema>
> > </wsdl:types>
> > 
> > and say that schema components in foo, bar and baz are 
> > visible to WSDL components but schema components in quux are 
> > only visible to the inline schema. Schema components in foo 
> > and bar are NOT visible to the inline schema.
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> > 
> 
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 12:07:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT