XML Schema implications of http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060928/

The XML Schema WG was asked to review the above document.
For various reasons the individuals tasked to this
responsibility have been very remiss and for this
we humbly beg your pardon.

What follows has not been reviewed by the Schema WG as
a whole, but in the interests of time, we thought it
better to get it to you, even if it has a somewhat
informal standing. So you should take this as a personal
response, unless you hear otherwise:

As you indicated in our call of a couple weeks ago,
you do not use the XML Schema formal component model
in the relevant sections.  Reference to the component
model would be preferable, and may make the story
cleaner in some respects. One aspect that would be
cleared up is a crisp statement of which types and elements
may be annotated in which ways. However, in the case of
non-schema namespace attributes, the exposition with the
transfer syntax is probably easier to grasp, so there
is no particular objection to using it. We would like,
however, for some kind of reference to the schema component
model (perhaps something as simple as "or the corresponing
schema component).

It was unclear to me why only global elements (and types)
could be annotated with lifting and lowering schema mappings.
The distinction of global versus local elements is
largely a matter of internal schema construction
policy so it seems unwise to force particular policies of
schema writing.


//Mary Holstege

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 17:09:56 UTC