W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second inline schema?

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1C84@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

it could be my mistake, but i understand R2004:

  <<[must not] import a Schema from any document whose root element is not "schema" >>

as prohibiting import of a namespace from one in-line schema into another in-line schema, since the root element of a WSDL document is "definitions".

As always, i'm prepared to be wrong .. in fact i'd like to be wrong here: i'm responsible for several .NET  generated WSDLs that schema import namespaces between multiple in-line schemas using a missing schemaLocation value.

Paul

[2004]
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.htm#refinement34101304
http://tinyurl.com/rary


-----Original Message-----
From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
Sent: 20 October 2003 15:54
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
Cc: mgudgin@microsoft.com; umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com;
www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second
inline schema?


I don't understand.

WS-I prohibited use of wsdl:import to import schema, and requires that
xs:import be inside xs:schema inside wsdl:types (bare xs:import inside
wsdl:types is allowed in wsdl.next).  It prohibits use of any schema
language other than W3C XML Schema, and prohibits import of fragments
(these from Anne Thomas Manes quotes of the WS-I BP).  I was not aware
of a prohibition of imports of embedded schema; could you cite or quote
this requirement?

Amy!
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:42:41 +0100
paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

> 
> I'm not sure I understand how is WSDL 2.0 clearer in this regard than
> WSDL 1.1 ? 
> 
> My concern is unless the rules are absolutely clear on how to
> reference across in-line schemas, it will require profiling out again
> in 2.0.
> 
> I assume the WS-I prohibited importing an in-line schema namespace
> because the 1.1 rules were unclear, not because of some other
> interoperability issue ?
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2003 15:23
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com;
> ryman@ca.ibm.com Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second
> inline schema?
> 
> 
> The BP is defined over WSDL 1.1, and it's true that in WSDL 1.1 the
> schema processing rules are unclear.
> 
> I think WSDL 2.0 is much clearer in this regard and see no real reason
> to prohibit references across in-line schemas.
> 
> Gudge 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> > Sent: 19 October 2003 08:57
> > To: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> > second inline schema?
> > 
> > Ümit wrote:
> > 
> > 		I would rather see inlined schemas to 
> > dissappear altogether from WSDL. Instead of discussing the 
> > semantics and the interpretation of inlined schemas within 
> > WSDL, the problem can be left to Schema completely. 
> > 		
> > 
> > I've thus far found stand-alone WSDLs very useful, but if the 
> > rules are unclear how to reference between in-line schemas, 
> > and the BP effectively prohibits it, then I agree: we should 
> > consider removing inline schemas from WSDL.
> >  
> > Paul
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 11:58:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT