RE: Changing "substitutionGroup" to "choice" and maintaining the validation equality of the schema

Ok, was my mistake:

I meant E not F:
<ns1:root><ns1:D><ns2:E>... [ns2 is located by xsi:schemaLocation] 

> If I'm not wrong, when you wrote Schema 2 you imported Schema 1, and
> thus Schema 2 declares both 
> ns2:F and ns1:D as shown below:
>
> Both (ns2:F and ns1:D) - sequence - choice - ref="ns1:B" 
>                                           - ref="ns1:C" 
>                                           - ref="ns2:E" 
Yes thats my view, too. But how do you implement this with schemas? 
ns1 importing ns2 AND ns2 importing ns1?

If you cannot live with recursive imports, you have to use any's.

Kind regards,
Harald


-----Original Message-----
From: Marko Smiljanic [mailto:m.smiljanic@utwente.nl]
Sent: Freitag, 17. Oktober 2003 15:20
To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Subject: RE: Changing "substitutionGroup" to "choice" and maintaining
the validation equality of the schema



Thanks Harald,

I was quite happy with the `so far so good' part but I'm a bit confused
with your follow up...
(btw. please excuse if this turns out to be a "stupid question". I do
not really know all the tiny bits of XSD).

Here are the schemas that you've given:

>Schema 1: targetNamespace: ns1 
> element A (abstract=true) 
> element B (substitutionGroup="ns1:A") 
> element C (substitutionGroup="ns1:A") 
> element D () - sequence - element (ref="ns1:A") 

>Schema 2: targetNamespace: ns2 
> element E (substitutionGroup="ns1:A") 
> element F () - sequence - element (ref="ns1:A") 

>D translates into: 
> element D () - sequence - element - ref="ns1:B" 
>                                   - ref="ns1:C" 
>F translates into: 
> element F () - sequence - element - ref="ns1:B" 
>                                   - ref="ns1:C" 
>                                   - ref="ns2:E" 
>so far so good, but imagine the following instance: 
><ns1:root><ns1:D><ns2:F>... [ns2 is located by xsi:schemaLocation] 

Last row, gives an XML instance like this I guess:

<ns1:root>
  <ns1:D>
     <ns2:F>
      ...
     </ns2:F>
  <ns1:D>
</ns1:root>

If that is so, than I do not see why do you expect this to be a valid
document in respect to Schema 2.
If I'm not wrong, when you wrote Schema 2 you imported Schema 1, and
thus Schema 2 declares both 
ns2:F and ns1:D as shown below:

Both (ns2:F and ns1:D) - sequence - choice - ref="ns1:B" 
                                           - ref="ns1:C" 
                                           - ref="ns2:E" 

I do not see the schema declaration that allows ns2:F to be nested in
ns1:D like in the example?
What did I get wrong?

Thanks,
Marko.

************************* 
Research assistant, Database Technology 
Department of Computer Science, University of Twente 
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands 
Phone +31 (053) 489 4520, Fax ~ 2927 
E-mail: m.smiljanic@utwente.nl 
WWW: www.cs.utwente.nl/~markosm