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: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:26:47 +0600
Message-ID: <047601c3972f$598dfb00$11b76c0c@lankabook2>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Obviously I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now.
Why do we say that imported components are not available to WSDL? In
general, why do we go saying things about other people's specs??

Also, isn't the replacement really
    <xs:schema><xs:include .../></xs:schema>
?? But then what do I know about schema.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second inline
schema?


> Except that putting in <xs:schema><xs:import ... /> </xs:schema> DOES NOT
make the imported constructs visible to WSDL ( we had this debate last
year )
>
> Gudge
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: 20 October 2003 18:11
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a
> > second inline schema?
> >
> >
> > We can avoid all this subtelty if we just say <types> can
> > contain only one <xsd:schema>. I actually don't even like us
> > allowing <xsd:import> directly inside types - if you want
> > that just put a <xsd:schema> and an import inside it.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> > To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
> > Cc: <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>;
> > <ryman@ca.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a
> > second inline schema?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Oops!
> > >
> > > That's an implication that I hadn't even thought of.  You're
> > > absolutely right; WS-I prohibits references between
> > embedded schemas in this way.
> > > I wonder if they knew that it had that effect?
> > >
> > > Amy!
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +0100
> > > paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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#r
> efinement34101
> > 304
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amelia A. Lewis
> > > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > > alewis@tibco.com
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 13:27:40 GMT

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