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

RE: Importing schemata into WSDL

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:59:45 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02F4431F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: "Don Mullen" <donmullen@tibco.com>, "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "WSDescription WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Amy,

It's not clear to me whether you are suggesting that XSD be supported
via an extensibility element or just things other than XSD?

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
> Sent: 15 October 2002 09:08
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Don Mullen; Jacek Kopecky; WSDescription WG
> Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> 
> 
> 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 13:00:18 GMT

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