RE: Importing schemata into WSDL

+1.  If somebody wants to import relaxng schemas, then <relax:import .....
seems reasonable.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Don Mullen; Jacek Kopecky; WSDescription WG
> Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
>
>
>
> XSD is supported in 1.1.  I don't propose changing that (I can foresee
> the screams that would erupt).  I'm proposing that alternate schema
> mechanisms should be defined in this fashion.
>
> On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 12:59, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Amy,
> >
> > It's not clear to me whether you are suggesting that XSD be
> supported
> > via an extensibility element or just things other than XSD?
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
> > > Sent: 15 October 2002 09:08
> > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > Cc: Don Mullen; Jacek Kopecky; WSDescription WG
> > > Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> > >
> > >
> > > In fact, I think this should be treated more or less as an
> > > extensibility element.  If my processor relaxes, then I can
> > > use relaxing syntax to pull in a schema.  If it sox-hops, use
> > > soxy syntax.  And so on.
> > > Presumably, each schema type other than the default would define:
> > >
> > > one or more attributes on message, to point at a type
> > > definition. an element to be used as a child of types
> > > indicating import information.
> > >
> > > Presumably, these extensions would be defined in a concise
> > > document ("Using Relax NG with SOAP"), which would gain
> > > support for standardization by adoption pre-standard.
> > >
> > > Amy!
> > > On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:12, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I think that xsd:import is used ONLY for XSD schemas.
> > > If we want
> > > > to pull in Relax NG schemas then that should be done with a
> > > different
> > > > element. Given people would need a new attribute on
> > > wsdl:part anyway,
> > > > in order to refer to Relax NG constructs, it doesn't seem too
> > > > burdensome to coin another element.
> > > >
> > > > Gudge
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Don Mullen [mailto:donmullen@tibco.com]
> > > > > Sent: 15 October 2002 06:09
> > > > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > > > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; WS Description WG
> > > > > Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I think this works well, and is what I had in mind as
> > > > > option #3 [1]. Upon reflection, I don't think we need
> > > > > anything indicating what kind of schema is being imported.
> > > > > That information would be available in the XML file (if
> > > > > location used) or already effectively processed and available
> > > > > by the schema cache.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems slightly strange to use the XML Schema namespace
> > > > > <import> to pull in a Relax NG schema or some other schema
> > > > > language, but it works, and most processors are going to
> > > > > support XML Schema (perhaps exclusively).
> > > > >
> > > > > Don
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Oct/0051.html
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:57 PM
> > > > To: Don Mullen
> > > > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; WS Description WG
> > > > Subject: RE: Importing schemata into WSDL
> > > >
> > > > I've been thinking a bit more about this. How about
> > > >
> > > > <wsdl:types>
> > > >   <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/foo' />
> > > >   <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/bar' />
> > > >
> > > >   <xs:schema targetNamespace='http://example.org/baz' >
> > > >     <xs:import namespace='http://example.org/quux' />
> > > >   </xs:schema>
> > > > </wsdl:types>
> > > >
> > > > and say that schema components in foo, bar and baz are
> > > > visible to WSDL components but schema components in quux are
> > > > only visible to the inline schema. Schema components in foo
> > > > and bar are NOT visible to the inline schema.
> > > >
> > > > Gudge
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Amelia A. Lewis
> > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > alewis@tibco.com
> >
> >
--
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 19:22:22 UTC