RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a second inline schema?

Except that putting in <xs:schema><xs:import ... /> </xs:schema> DOES NOT make the imported constructs visible to WSDL ( we had this debate last year )

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: 20 October 2003 18:11
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> second inline schema?
> 
> 
> We can avoid all this subtelty if we just say <types> can 
> contain only one <xsd:schema>. I actually don't even like us 
> allowing <xsd:import> directly inside types - if you want 
> that just put a <xsd:schema> and an import inside it.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Cc: <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>; 
> <ryman@ca.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> second inline schema?
> 
> 
> >
> > Oops!
> >
> > That's an implication that I hadn't even thought of.  You're 
> > absolutely right; WS-I prohibits references between 
> embedded schemas in this way.
> > I wonder if they knew that it had that effect?
> >
> > Amy!
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:57:55 +0100
> > paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> >
> > > it could be my mistake, but i understand R2004:
> > >
> > >   <<[must not] import a Schema from any document whose 
> root element is
> > >   not "schema" >>
> > >
> > > as prohibiting import of a namespace from one in-line schema into 
> > > another in-line schema, since the root element of a WSDL 
> document is 
> > > "definitions".
> > >
> > > As always, i'm prepared to be wrong .. in fact i'd like 
> to be wrong
> > > here: i'm responsible for several .NET  generated WSDLs 
> that schema 
> > > import namespaces between multiple in-line schemas using 
> a missing 
> > > schemaLocation value.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > [2004]
> > >
> http://ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.htm#r
efinement34101
> 304
> > > http://tinyurl.com/rary
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
> > > Sent: 20 October 2003 15:54
> > > To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> > > Cc: mgudgin@microsoft.com; umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; 
> > > ryman@ca.ibm.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Can one inline schema import definitions 
> from a second 
> > > inline schema?
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't understand.
> > >
> > > WS-I prohibited use of wsdl:import to import schema, and requires 
> > > that xs:import be inside xs:schema inside wsdl:types 
> (bare xs:import 
> > > inside wsdl:types is allowed in wsdl.next).  It prohibits 
> use of any 
> > > schema language other than W3C XML Schema, and prohibits 
> import of 
> > > fragments (these from Anne Thomas Manes quotes of the 
> WS-I BP).  I 
> > > was not aware of a prohibition of imports of embedded 
> schema; could 
> > > you cite or quote this requirement?
> > >
> > > Amy!
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:42:41 +0100
> > > paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand how is WSDL 2.0 clearer in 
> this regard 
> > > > than WSDL 1.1 ?
> > > >
> > > > My concern is unless the rules are absolutely clear on how to 
> > > > reference across in-line schemas, it will require profiling out 
> > > > again in 2.0.
> > > >
> > > > I assume the WS-I prohibited importing an in-line 
> schema namespace 
> > > > because the 1.1 rules were unclear, not because of some other 
> > > > interoperability issue ?
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> > > > Sent: 19 October 2003 15:23
> > > > To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; 
> > > > ryman@ca.ibm.com Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> > > > second inline schema?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The BP is defined over WSDL 1.1, and it's true that in WSDL 1.1 
> > > > the schema processing rules are unclear.
> > > >
> > > > I think WSDL 2.0 is much clearer in this regard and see no real 
> > > > reason to prohibit references across in-line schemas.
> > > >
> > > > Gudge
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > > > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > > > paul.downey@bt.com Sent: 19 October 2003 08:57
> > > > > To: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com; ryman@ca.ibm.com
> > > > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: Can one inline schema import definitions from a 
> > > > > second inline schema?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ümit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would rather see inlined schemas to dissappear 
> altogether from 
> > > > > WSDL. Instead of discussing the semantics and the 
> interpretation 
> > > > > of inlined schemas within WSDL, the problem can be left to 
> > > > > Schema completely.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've thus far found stand-alone WSDLs very useful, but if the 
> > > > > rules are unclear how to reference between in-line 
> schemas, and 
> > > > > the BP effectively prohibits it, then I agree: we should 
> > > > > consider removing inline schemas from WSDL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amelia A. Lewis
> > > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > > alewis@tibco.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amelia A. Lewis
> > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > alewis@tibco.com
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 13:16:00 UTC