RE: Idle question

The xs:import element does two things.

1.	It signals that the schema containing the import uses components
from a namespace other than the target namespace of the containing
schema.
2.	If there is a schemaLocation, it indicates where one can
retrieve a resource containing such components.

Regarding the latter, the result of retrieving such a resource on the
WWW must be an xs:schema element (although there is no requirement that
the root element of the retrieved resource be an xs:schema ). See
section 4.3 of Schema Part 1[1]

xs:include is similar.

To me, if I wsdl20:include or wsdl20:import a resource that does not
result in a wsdl20:definitions element (either as the root element or
such an element identified by fragid ) then at best I get no components
and at worst it's an error.

Gudge

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/#composition-instance
s

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: 26 October 2004 21:35
> To: Amelia A Lewis
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Idle question
> 
> 
> OK what I meant is this: If we do *nothing extra* then the wsdl11 
> namespace will not be recognized as WSDL by a WSDL 2.0 processor.
> Thus any WSDL 1.1 element that's placed in a WSDL 2.0 document
> will be just an extension element.
> 
> If someone attempts to import WSDL 1.1 (or XSD or YourML or MyML)
> stuff via wsdl20:import then it will fail as we have specifically
> defined import semantics at the component model level and there
> are no WSDL 2.0 components there.
> 
> If someone attempts to include I guess the same thing will occur,
> but I have to read that part again to see what we say precisely.
> 
> Gudge, you did worked on most of the import/include stuff - do 
> you agree?
> 
> Amy, does this make sense? I also do not want to support WSDL 1.1
> import/include - it simply doesn't make sense as we'd have to
> define an equivalence relation to make it go. ARGH! More work!!
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Idle question
> 
> 
> > 
> > I don't understand that answer.
> > 
> > I'm working on implementation, and one of the areas of 
> implementation is
> > import (and include; *sigh* that include was included).  It 
> is natural
> > enough that WSDL 1.1 cannot import WSDL 2.0.  Is it true 
> that WSDL 2.0
> > cannot import or include WSDL 1.1?  This seems a painful limitation
> > (although it makes the work go faster).  If it *can*, what are the
> > semantics of the included components?
> > 
> > It would probably be enough to say "WSDL 2.0 documents 
> cannot import or
> > include WSDL 1.1 documents" to clarify the situation.  I 
> *do* think we
> > need a clarification, though, because as it stands, the 
> import/include
> > descriptions talk about including WSDL, not just WSDL 2.0.
> > 
> > Amy!
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:11:37 +0600
> > Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > You can of course import it but since those elems would simply be
> > > extension elements ...
> > > 
> > > Sanjiva.
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> > > To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:47 PM
> > > Subject: Idle question
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Heylas,
> > > > 
> > > > So, can a WSDL 2.0 document import or include a WSDL 
> 1.1 document?
> > > > 
> > > > Presumably, 1.1 cannot import 2.0.
> > > > 
> > > > Amy!
> > > > -- 
> > > > Amelia A. Lewis
> > > > Senior Architect
> > > > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > > > alewis@tibco.com
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Amelia A. Lewis
> > Senior Architect
> > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > alewis@tibco.com
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 02:59:30 UTC