W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

Proposal for LC64:

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:09:17 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6C51C242.07FB0907-ON85256FFF.00556E8B-85256FFF.0058BDBA@ca.ibm.com>
LC64 [1] points out the ElementDeclaration and TypeDefinition are 
top-level components and so we should define URI-references for them. 
There was also a suggestion that we use Schema Component Designators [1] 
for this purpose. I reviewed the SCD spec and don't think they are a good 
solution for the following reasons:

1. WSDL 2.0 allows other XML type systems so we need a solution that 
doesn't depend on XML Schema
2. SCD itself solves a much more complex problem. It defines a syntax for 
any schema component. However, we are only interesting in top-level named 
elements and types, and these have simple QNames.

I propose the following syntax.

wsdl.elementDeclaration(uri, QName)
wsdl.typeDefinition(uri, QName)

where uri identifies the XML type system and QName identifies the element 
or type. For XML Schema, uri = http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 

If we want to give XML Schema special status, we could allow the following 
shorthand (i.e. omit the uri):

wsdl.elementDeclaration(QName)
wsdl.typeDefinition(QName)

Finally, SCD does have a designator for the schema-as-a-whole. For 
completeness, we should add:

wsdl.description( )

or simply

wsdl.description

Comments?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC64
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 16:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT