Re: XML Schema implications of

Dear Mary, 
I'm now closing both issues described below because I haven't seen any
reply from you, which I will take for agreement with the resolutions.
Just letting you know; we're now about to enter Proposed Recommendation
so there is still time for small editorial changes, or of course dealing
with any other issues, should you, indeed, have any. 8-)

Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
SAWSDL working group

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 15:10 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Dear Mary, 
> as I wrote you before in [1], we logged your earlier comments as issues
> 1 and 2 in the SAWSDL issues list [2]. Both were resolved by the group:
> 1) you requested that we add XML Schema component wording about adding
> our properties {lifting schema mapping}, {lowering schema mapping} and
> {model reference} to schema components. Such wording is now present in
> section 4 of the editor's draft [3], for instance (from 4.1.1):
>         In the XML Schema component model, a non-empty modelReference on
>         a top-level simple type is represented as {model reference}
>         property of the XML Schema Simple Type Definition Schema
>         component; the case of an empty modelReference or no
>         modelReference at all is represented with an XML Schema Simple
>         Type Definition component that does not have a {model reference}
>         property. {model reference} properties are propagated from a
>         simple type definition schema component to all attribute and
>         element declaration schema components that are defined with that
>         simple type.
> 2) you ask why only global elements and types can be annotated with
> lifting and lowering schema mappings. While the distinction between
> global and local element declarations and type definitions is, indeed,
> largely a matter of policy, it is only the global type definitions and
> element declarations that can stand alone and be used to describe the
> whole contents of a message, especially in WSDL. Our lifting and
> lowering schema mappings must apply to the complete message, because
> otherwise we would have to specify how the results of multiple mappings
> are put together - this would be easy in RDF, but hard in XML. 
> Of course the mappings themselves (for instance XSLT stylesheets) can
> include other mappings for any internal structures as necessary,
> therefore we do not feel that our restriction on the placement of
> lifting and lower schema mapping annotations is practically limiting.
> Hope these are satisfactory resolutions, please reply on whether you
> agree, so we can record your consent or work to resolve whatever is
> left. 8-)
> Thank you for your comments,
> Jacek Kopecky
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 10:09:37 UTC