- From: Yi Wang <yiwang@obj-sys.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:16:12 -0500
- To: George Cowe <gcowe@origoservices.com>
- CC: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
Hi George,
Thanks for updating the example. There is another issue with this
example - echoQualifiedLocalElements.wsdl is not valid. The attribute
'element' in message part 'echoQualifiedLocalElementsRequest' refers to
element 'ex:echoQualifiedLocalElements' which is not defined within the
WSDLfile. It was validated unsuccessfully using XMLSpy 2008. The WSDL
files in the following examples have similar problem:
BlockDefault
IncludeRelative
QualifiedLocalAttributes
UnqualifiedLocalElements
UnqualifiedLocalAttributes
ImportNamespace
ImportSchemaNamespace
ImportSchema
ImportTypesNamespace
FinalDefault
SchemaVersion
SOAPEncodedArray
TargetNamespace
NoTargetNamespace
ElementTypeDefaultNamespace (namespace prefix missing from the
built-in type )
Regards,
Yi Wang
Objective Systems
George Cowe wrote:
> I have updated the QualifiedLocalElements example so that it actually contains some qualified local elements!
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/QualifiedLocalElements/
>
> For resolution of last call issue lc-xsd-9 (reference to Section 2.1.2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-comments/2008Feb/0000.html )
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: 19 March 2008 11:35
> To: public-xsd-databinding@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 18 March 2008
>
>
> are now available:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/8/3/18-databinding-minutes.html
>
> and copied below:
>
>
> - DRAFT -
>
> XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference
>
> 18 Mar 2008
>
> See also: IRC log
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Jon Calladine (BT)
> George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
> Paul Downey (BT)
> Yves Lafon (W3C)
>
> Regrets
> Chair
> pauld
>
> Scribe
> pauld
>
> Contents
>
> * Topics
> 1. Patterns Detection
> 2. ISSUE-2: test suite
> 3. Charter Renewal?
> 4. Status of Basic Patterns
> 5. Last Call comments from Schema WG
> 6. lc-xsd-5
> 7. lc-xsd-6
> 8. lc-xsd-7
> 9. lc-xsd-8
> 10. lc-xsd-9
> 11. lc-xsd-10
> 12. lc-xsd-11 Editorial Concerns
> 13. Status of Publication
> * Summary of Action Items
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> minutes from 2008-3-11 teleconference 2008-2-19 teleconference approved
>
> Patterns Detection
>
> pauld: built annotation
> ... see the examples and collection pages
>
> gcowe: will look at optionally adding it to the service
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/DateAttribute/
>
> ISSUE-2: test suite
>
> gcowe: the XBinder guys picked up an old copy of the testsuite and sent results
>
> pauld: cool!
>
> gcowe: we've added a load more tests, so I sent them a new copy
>
> pauld: that's great. Many thanks!
> ... collection is now checked in with annotation!
> ... what's next for the test suite?
>
> gcowe: not a lot, we've run the tools we can, half the toolkits missing, Adrian had the ability to run them
>
> pauld: but for basic, how do we stand?
>
> <gcowe> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/basic.html
>
> pauld: I can rerun SOAP4R and ZSI, can someone help with WCF
>
> <Yves> I am doing gsoap c and c++
>
> Charter Renewal?
>
> pauld: dependent on publishing Last Call documents
>
> yves: we should be able to ask for another six months
>
> Status of Basic Patterns
>
> pauld: thanks George for the work on differencing
> ... status section needs updating further
>
> Last Call comments from Schema WG
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-comments/2008Feb/0000.html
>
> lc-xsd-5
>
> * Schema documents vs. schemas: Following up on the point above, there are
> schema documents that do not stand on their own in defining a schema
> that's useful for validation. For example, if a schema document merely
> defines a complext Type T as being derived by extension from type B with
> attribute A, then you don't really know what the type is until you find
> the base type B, and that may well be in a different schema document.
> Maybe there is element content in effective type T. If there is an
> element E declared of type T, then what does the requirement to "[expose]
> all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content described by
> the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document" mean? The problem is that it's
> not really schema documents that directly call for or don't call for
> content in documents to be validated. Schema documents contribute to the
> construction of a schema (formally defined at [4]), which in turn contains
> element declarations, etc. that can be used to require or allow content
> in documents to be validated. >>It seems that some serious thought is
> needed as to whether it's schema documents or schemas that would conform
> to the databinding specification.<< In any case, referring to the
> element or attribute content "described by a schema document" is not just
> too informal; as suggested above, it's likely that you really want to
> talk about the element or attribute content allowed by a schema.
> Conversely, you could more clearly define a set of rules relating to
> individual schema documents if that's what you really intend.
>
> pauld: this is related to the infoset (v) document issue. It would be much harder to write test tools for this
>
> yves: we're testing for bytes on the wire, not at the infoset level
>
> pauld: the only way I could see this working is if they had an XML format for their infoset or even the PSVI
> ... anyone want to support this comment?
>
> *crickets*
>
> RESOLUTION: lc-xsd-5 rejected
>
> lc-xsd-6
>
> * Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "MUST
> be able to consume any well-formed [XML 1.0] document which satisfies
> local-schema validity against the originating [XML Schema 1.0] document
> exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and attribute node content in
> the data model." Again, local-schema validity is not a relation defined
> on the pair {instance, schema document}, it is (presuming you indicate
> which type or element declaration to start with) defined on the pair
> {instance, schema}"
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/basic/basic.html#assert-ProduceXML
>
> pauld: anyone feel like they have better words for this assertion?
>
> *crickets*
>
> gcowe: let's ask them for better text!
>
> <scribe> ACTION: pdowney to ask the Schema WG for advice [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-129 - Ask the Schema WG for advice [on Paul Downey - due 2008-03-25].
>
> pauld: so we accept the comment, but don't have the skills to address it to schema WG's satisfaction
>
> lc-xsd-7
>
> * Section 2: "The [XPath 2.0] expression is located from an [XML Schema
> 1.0] element node which may be the document element, or an element
> contained inside an [XML 1.0] document such as [WSDL 2.0] description."
>
> It's not quite clear what is meant in saying that an "[XPath 2.0]
> expression is located from". Is this trying to establish the "Context
> Node" for the XPath expression as being the node of the <xsd:schema>
> element? If so, we recommend you say that more clearly, preferably with
> hyperlinks to the pertinent parts of the XPath Recommendation. Also, the
> phrase "may not" can be read as prohibiting the case where the element
> note is the document node. I suspect you meant "need not". Finally, [XML
> Schema 1.0] element node isn't a term that appears in the XSD
> Recommendation; did you mean the "root element information item of the
> schema document"?
>
> pauld: accept "need not" change to text
> ... suggest a note to say "this is to establish the Context node for the XPath expression"
> ... seems reasonable to link to the XPath recommedation
>
> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-7 with suggested text changes
>
> lc-xsd-8
>
> * Sections 2.x: The phrase "An [XML 1.0] document exibits the XXXXX
> pattern...." is used repeatedly in these sections and their descendents.
> See comments about about need to refer to "schema documents", if that's
> what's intended.
>
> pauld: looks like the documents (v) infoset comment again
>
> yves: is that the instance document?
>
> pauld: we could be clearer that it's a WSDL 1.0, 2.0, Schema, whatever, but balooning the boilerplate isn't desirable
> ... we already have "2.1 Schema Element
>
> The xs:schema element MAY be the document element, but MAY also appear within other descriptions such as a [WSDL 2.0] or
> [WSDL 1.1] document. /-"
>
> yves: text tied up better to the "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits the"
>
> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-5 as requiring clarification
>
> lc-xsd-9
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#group-SchemaElement
>
> * Section 2.1.2: talks about qualified local elements, but the sample
> schema contains no local elements.
>
> pauld: we could change the example to include local elements
>
> gcowe: what does that mean for the test suite? is this one excluded?
>
> pauld: I suspect this is something we've excluded, so it could be safe
>
> could risk introducing an advanced pattern
>
> example something like:
>
> <xs:element name="foo">
> <xs:complexType>
> <xs:sequence>
> <xs:element ..
> <xs:element ..
> </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
> </xs:element
>
> gcowe: will update example
>
> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-9, will expand example
>
> lc-xsd-10
>
> * Section 2.1.6: BlockDefault. This pattern seems to imply that
> substitutions and or derivations are blocked if the @blockDefault
> attribute is provided, but in fact that attribute carries a value that can
> selectively enable or disable blocking for any combination of extension,
> restriction, and substitution. It seems unlikely that the rule of
> interest is really that the attribute is present. Is that what's
> intended, or did you wish to actually check for certain values of the
> blockDefault. Note, in particular, that an explicit blockDefault="" has
> the same semantic as leaving out the attribute entirely.
> I regret that I did not have time to review the remainder of the patterns
> in the draft, but I would assume that the above comments would be
> representative of what would be found for other patterns.
>
> jonc: mea culpa!
> ... pattern needs tightening up,
>
> pauld: it's been moved to Advanced anyway
>
> <scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to sort out BlockDefault patterns [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
>
> <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-130 - Sort out BlockDefault patterns [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2008-03-25].
>
> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-10, BlockDefault has been moved to Advanced
>
> lc-xsd-11 Editorial Concerns
>
> The databinding draft is very long, and a lot of it is devoted to what is
> ultimately boilerplate. Consider the targetNamespace pattern. It is
> introduced with nearly 1/2 page of multicolor writeup, but really all it's
> trying to say seems to be: This pattern requires that the schema
> document have a targetNamespace attribute with an absolute URI as its
> value. That could be said much more clearly and concisely. I think the
> draft would be much more effective if the patterns were introduced in a
> manner that was as concise and clear as possible. It's not helpful to
> repeat over and over "An [XML 1.0] document exhibits....", and as noted
> above, the example schema could be made shorter and clearer. Finally,
> what would be most helpful for a pattern like this is to explain ">>why<<
> an absolute URI"? The Schema recommendation points to the XML Namespaces
> recommendation for the definition of a namespace name, and that in turn
> requires a URI Reference [5], not an Absolute URI. So, it would be
> useful in general if some of the boilerplate were eliminated and the
> sections made much shorter and easier to read, but conversely it would be
> useful to say a bit about what makes the pattern interesting. Explain
> briefly if there's a reason why absolute namespace URIs are interesting,
> or did you really just mean this pattern to be "a non-absent
> targetNamespace is available"?
>
> pauld: OK, so whatabout our extensive use of boilerplate?
>
> pauld: it's not a very human readable spec!
>
> gcowe: it is computer generated
>
> jonc: hard to avoid
>
> >>>why<<<
>
> pauld: we could have written another Schema primer, but our work has been driven by the test suite and our patterns
> detector resulting in a concrete testable document. Without a strong proposal of contributed annotated text, I'm going to
> push back.
>
> jonc: discussion was it's opening the flood gates, and this is for the primer
>
> pauld: I know, I'm not keen on specs which justify themselves
> ... we're pretty clear why a pattern is Basic or Advanced
> ... we're not clear on how patterns come about
> ... sounds like something we could add as editorial text, volunteers?
> ... we've done a lot of work in terms of test tools and suites, and that' the best approach IMO
>
> jonc: in the past I have argued for Noah's position, but it's seems best left to additional documents and discussion, on a
> wiki?
>
> pauld: XML was famously wafted by Tim Bray as a small spec, then the first thing he did was publish an "annotated version".
> You're free to do the same :)
> ... I think its' fair comment to say why a pattern is interesting. Hmm. Will look at that generically in the introduction.
>
> RESOLUTION: accepted lc-xsd-11 in part, will add more introduction text
>
> Status of Publication
>
> pauld: all of the comments accepted are editorial, any objections to incorporating the text and then going ahead to Last
> Call as planned?
>
> *None heard*
>
> pickup again next tuesday
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: jcalladi to sort out BlockDefault patterns [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
> [NEW] ACTION: pdowney to ask the Schema WG for advice [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/03/18-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
>
>
> E-mail disclaimer
>
> The information in this e-mail is sent in confidence for the addressee only and may be legally privileged. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the sender immediately of the error in transmission and then delete this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Origo Services Limited accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of this e-mail or the contents. It is your responsibility to scan for viruses. Origo Services Limited reserves the right to monitor e-mails sent to or from addresses under its control. When you reply to this e-mail, you are consenting to Origo Services Limited monitoring the content of the e-mails you send to or receive from Origo Services Limited. If this e-mail is non-business related Origo Services Limited is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender. The contents of this e-mail are protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
>
> Origo Services Limited is a company incorporated in Scotland (company number 115061) having its registered office at 4th floor, Saltire Court, 20 Castle Terrace, Edinburgh EH1 2EN.
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 16:20:36 UTC