W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Second level xs:import

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:51:31 -0500
To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040204105131.3b076740.alewis@tibco.com>

Good analogy.  +1.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:34:57 -0800
Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> wrote:

> It doesn't have anything to do with inheritance, it's really all about
> modules.
> 
> An xsd:import means "I'm going to use some top-level components from
> this namespace, please make them available". Perhaps those components
> need in turn to use components from yet another namespace, but why
> should I see them? They are an implementation detail really.
> 
> Or, to use a programming language analogy, xsd:import and wsdl:import
> are more like Java import, not C #include. And that's the correct
> definition, IMHO.
> 
> Roberto
> 
> 
> Yaron Goland wrote:
> > If I import a Schema file from namespace Foo and the Schema File I
> > imported itself imports a schema file from namespace Bar then
> > effectively the WSDL file has imported namespace Bar as well and
> > should be free to reference Bar. The inheritance chain is clear. The
> > namespaces are all explicitly declared. What's the problem?
> > 
> > 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> >>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:18 AM
> >>To: ygoland@bea.com; Amelia A Lewis; David Orchard
> >>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>Subject: RE: Second level xs:import
> >>
> >>
> >>The *design* limitation, was that schema wanted people to be 
> >>*explicit*
> >>about namespaces they wanted to use. So, in order to reference
> >>components in namespace foo, a schema MUST have an import for 
> >>namespace
> >>foo ( or itself be a schema for namespace foo ). 
> >>
> >>I think it is a reasonable design decision to make for WSDL too.
> >>
> >>Gudge 
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> >>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland
> >>>Sent: 26 January 2004 17:30
> >>>To: 'Amelia A Lewis'; 'David Orchard'
> >>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>>Subject: RE: Second level xs:import
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>While I can appreciate the wisdom in re-use, re-use should 
> >>>only be done with open eyes and full understanding. Do we 
> >>>know the technical reason why the restriction is there? If 
> >>>not then we should either find out or remove the restriction.
> >>>	Thanks,
> >>>		Yaron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> >>>
> >>>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> >>>
> >>>>Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> >>>>Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:05 PM
> >>>>To: David Orchard
> >>>>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>>>Subject: Re: Second level xs:import
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Because that works the same way that schema import does, 
> >>
> >>and that's 
> >>
> >>>>what it's modeled on.
> >>>>
> >>>>Amy!
> >>>>On Jan 26, 2004, at 2:54 PM, David Orchard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why is it illegal to reference items that are included in an 
> >>>>>imported/included schema vis xs:import? (per section 3 
> >>
> >>of part 1)
> >>
> >>>>>Cheers,
> >>>>>Dave
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2004 10:51:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC