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: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:38 -0700
Message-ID: <3F9433E2.5080705@oracle.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org


Martin Gudgin wrote:

>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
>
I guess what you are implying is that the way the Sample Apps xsd and 
wsdls are written today will need to be changed. The BP recommended 
pattern <wsdl:types><xsd:schema><xsd:import>.... is used by Sample Apps 
to incorporate the schemas. With the visibility rules as specified in 
our spec today, these will need to be rewritten as 
<wsdl:types><xs:import> to get the same visibility and to reuse the 
components.


>
>Gudge 
>  
>
--umit

>  
>
>>-----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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 15:13:44 GMT

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