W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Proposal for Resolution of CR005

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:21:30 +0100
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, lmandel@ca.ibm.com
Message-Id: <1140096090.3753.32.camel@localhost>

Hi Arthur, please see below.

> There are two possible resolutions. 
> 
> R1 - remove the exception so that document do have to import the XML
> Schema namespace. This means that any document that references the XML
> Schema built-in types would have to include a section like: 
> 
> <type/> 
>         <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema " /> 
> </type> 
> 
> R2 - add a statement to the state stating that every component model
> contains the built in types. I would add the following statement to
> 2.1.1 The Description Component 
> 
> The {type definitions} property of the Description component MUST
> contain all of the built-in datatypes defined by XML Schema Part 2:
> Datatypes Second Edition [XMLSchema: Datatypes] [4], namely string,
> boolean, decimal, float, double, duration, dateTime, time, date,
> gYearMonth, gYear, gMonthDay, gDay, gMonth, hexBinary, base64, Binary,
> anyURI, QName, NOTATION, normalizedString, token, language, NMTOKEN,
> NMTOKENS, Name, NCName, ID, IDREF, IDREFS, ENTITY, ENTITIES, integer,
> nonPositiveInteger, negativeInteger, long, int, short, byte,
> nonNegativeInteger, unsignedLong, unsignedInt, unsignedShort,
> unsignedByte, positiveInteger. 
> 
> After reflection on this issue, I recommend R1 because I don't think
> it is really much of a burden to authors to add the <xs:import> in
> those cases where they actually define Property components that
> directly reference built-in XML Schema types.. It makes the spec
> simpler since there are no exceptions to the import rule. It makes the
> component model simpler since it removes some of the coupling with XML
> Schema. 

I tend to prefer R2 because it feels more consistent with XML Schema.
With R1, when using these types within schemas, no import has to be
done, but when using them from properties, such import would be
necessary.

As long as we have the {type definitions} property on Description
(necessary not only for Property components, but also for HTTP headers
in adjuncts), I suggest that it would indeed be pre-populated with XS
datatypes.

However, I'd drop the MUST from the new text for 2.1.1 and do a bit more
rephrasing:

        Above the type definitions contribute by included and imported
        schemas, the {type definitions} property component contains all
        of the built-in datatypes defined by XML Schema Part 2:
        Datatypes Second Edition [XMLSchema: Datatypes] [4], namely
        string, ... These type definitions can be referenced without
        importing the XML Schema namespace.

Best regards,

Jacek
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:21:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:38 GMT