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: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:10:48 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338203947@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We're not saying anything about the way other people's specs work, that IS the way schema works:

A imports B imports C

Constructs in C are not visible to A

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 18:27
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> second inline schema?
> 
> 
> 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mit 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 14:11:42 GMT

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