- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:48:01 -0700
- To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <017201c34c7a$d7446250$620ba8c0@beasys.com>
So can the group interpret this as a friendly amendment for a refinement on how to do the open content model? In particular, the separation of ##other and ##targetnamespace content models. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:56 AM > To: David Orchard; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposal: Wildcards for WSDL 1.2 > > > We decided a week or two ago to use an open content model > instead of substitution groups, now we're just polishing off > that item by deciding what the default validation mode should be. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > > Behalf Of David Orchard > > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 1:34 PM > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: Proposal: Wildcards for WSDL 1.2 > > > > I'd like to propose the use of wildcards in WSDL 1.2 rather than > > substitution groups. My understanding of the rationale for > substitution > > groups is at least two-fold: Problems with determinism, and > desire for > > validation. On the first reason, there are some schema > techniques that > > can be used that allow full extensibility and backwards/forwards > > compatible changes. The validation requirement I've > addressed separately. > > > > The core technique is to make the extensions in the same > namespace into an > > optional extension element. The documented type then becomes: > > > > <xs:complexType name="ExtensibleDocumented" abstract="true" > > mixed="false"> > > <xs:annotation> > > <xs:documentation>This type is extended by component > types to allow > > attributes from other namespaces to be added.</xs:documentation> > > </xs:annotation> > > <xs:complexContent> > > <xs:extension base="wsdl:Documented"> > > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any" processContents="lax" /> > > <xs:element name="Extension" type="wsdl:ExtensionType" > minOccurs="0" > > maxOccurs="1"/> > > <xs:any processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" > > namespace="##other"/> > > </xs:extension> > > </xs:complexContent> > > </xs:complexType> > > > > <xs:complexType name="ExtensionType"> > > <xs:sequence> > > <xs:any processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded" > > namespace="##targetnamespace"/> > > </xs:sequence> > > <xs:anyAttribute/> > > </xs:complexType> > > > > This might not quite be it, because the wsdl:required > attribute needs to > > be applicable to same namespace and different namespace extensions. > > > > This resolves the determinism problems with > namespace="##any" which can't > > follow elements with minOccurs!=maxOccurs. It makes the > tree a bit more > > complicated when forward compatible schema changes happen > in the same > > namespace, as the extensionType needs to be refined for > each extension. > > As in, adding a <wsdl:foo/> in a forwards compatible way > means that the > > instance looks like <Extension><foo/></Extension>. But > this does allow > > forwards and backwards compatible changes. > > > > What do y'all think? > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On > > > Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:48 AM > > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > Subject: Examples of substitution group extending WSDL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Results of my tinkering below. > > > > > > First, I created an instance with a brand new extension > to see how a > > > fresh extension schema would work. > > > > > > <definitions xmlns="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" > > > xmlns:my="http://www.example.com/extensions/mine" > > > > > > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.example.com/extensions/mine > > > extension.xsd > > > http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl wsdl.xsd" > > > targetNamespace="http://example.com/jonathan/test"> > > > <documentation>This file tests validation of an extended WSDL > > > document</documentation> > > > <my:extension>Jonathan Marsh</my:extension> > > > </definitions> > > > > > > I described this extension with a schema, and inserted it into the > > > globalExt substitution group (which allows the extension > to appear at > > > the top level, and almost anywhere else, within WSDL). > > > > > > <xs:schema > targetNamespace="http://www.example.com/extensions/mine" > > > xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > > > elementFormDefault="qualified"> > > > <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > schemaLocation="wsdl.xsd"/> > > > <xs:element name="extension" type="xs:string" > > > substitutionGroup="wsdl:globalExt"/> > > > </xs:schema> > > > > > > Notes: > > > 1) The extension schema imports the wsdl schema for the purpose of > > > allowing the substitution group to be specified. > > > 2) The validator needs to associate both the extension schema and > > > the WSDL schema. In this case I used the xsi:schemaLocation > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > > Next I took an existing vocabulary (DSig) and tried to > embed it in the > > > WSDL. > > > > > > <definitions xmlns="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" > > > xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" > > > > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig# > > > wsdl+dsig.xsd http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl wsdl.xsd" > > > targetNamespace="http://example.com/jonathan/test"> > > > <documentation>This file tests validation of an extended WSDL > > > document</documentation> > > > <ds:Signature> > > > <ds:SignedInfo> > > > <ds:CanonicalizationMethod > > > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315"/> > > > <ds:SignatureMethod > > > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#dsa-sha1"/> > > > <ds:Reference > > > URI="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml1-20000126/"> > > > <ds:Transforms> > > > <ds:Transform > > > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315"/> > > > </ds:Transforms> > > > <ds:DigestMethod > > > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> > > > > > > <ds:DigestValue>j6lwx3rvEPO0vKtMup4NbeVu8nk=</ds:DigestValue> > > > </ds:Reference> > > > </ds:SignedInfo> > > > <ds:SignatureValue>MC0CFFrVLtRlk=...</ds:SignatureValue> > > > </ds:Signature> > > > </definitions> > > > > > > In order to validate this, I had to modify the DSig schema > > > (wsdl+dsig.xsd) in three ways: > > > 1) Add an appropriate substitutionGroup attribute, with > the value of a > > > WSDL extension group QName. > > > 2) Declare WSDL namespace prefix so the QName is valid. > > > 3) Add an import of the wsdl schema so the QName reference is > > > complete. > > > > > > (new lines marked with "|") > > > > > > <schema targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" > > > ...> > > > | <import namespace="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl" > > > | schemaLocation="wsdl.xsd"/> > > > <element name="Signature" type="ds:SignatureType" > > > | substitutionGroup="wsdl:globalExt" > > > | xmlns:wsdl="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl"/> > > > ... > > > </schema> > > > > > > Then I attempted the holy grail, a simple wrapper schema that > > > would have > > > the effect of the schema above, while importing the DSig > > > schema without > > > modification. I failed in this because: > > > - Element declarations in an imported schema cannot be overridden. > > > - Redefine does not work on element declarations. > > > - There is no other way to add elements to a substitution group. > > > > > > I rejected modifications to the instance document that > would enable a > > > wrapper schema: > > > - Changing the namespace of the top level element. > > > - Introducing a wrapper element. > > > > > > My conclusion is that the cleanest way to enable this scenario was > > > copying and modifying the DSig schema with the simple > additions found > > > above. I also note that this would be necessary to allow > > > wsdl:required > > > attributes to appear on ds:Signature elements. > > > > > > Do we find this limitation acceptable? Does this > limitation outweigh > > > the benefits of our substitution group extensibility mechanism? > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 11:49:17 UTC