WSDL Action Item: Review LC75s Table

This is one of my action items ...

> 2005-02-17: Asir to review table on how import and include actually work
(added by JJM)

For LC75s <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC75s> , we decided
to incorporate a table that describes the visibility of XML Schema
components in WSDL. On the call, we formulated the names and number of
columns and rows in this table; location of the table; etc. I see some
problems with LC75s decision. A copy of the first
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content
-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#tab_SchemaVisibility> attempt is:


Table 3-1. Visibility of schema components

	Directly in WSDL	 In schema	
xs:import	 All components from the imported namespace are visible to
WSDL (the schema must have an identical targetNamespace).	 Components
imported by the schema itself are NOT visible to WSDL.	
xs:include	 All components included are visible to WSDL (the included
schema must NOT have a namespace already).	 All components included by
the schema itself are visible to WSDL (the schema included in the schema
must NOT have a namespace already).	
wsdl:import	 The embedded schemas contained in the imported WSDL
document are NOT visible to WSDL.	 n/a	
wsdl:include	 The embedded schemas contained in the included WSDL are
visible to WSDL (as long as they share the same targetNamespace).	 n/a



In this table, ...

Two products are involved: WSDL and XML Schema. This table cuts through
multiple levels: XML Representation (xs:import, WSDL document), Mapping from
XML Representation to Components (xs:import-->schema), and Component Model
(embedded schema, schema, components ...) I like to emphasize that this cuts
through multiple levels in two products.

Other issues are, this table includes information that is beyond visibility.
Example: "the schema must have an identical targetNamespace". But, that is a
constraint. Most of these constraints are repetition. They are described in
other parts of the spec. 'xs:include' is not allowed in WSDL.

Another observation is, the information in this table is beyond the scope of
Section 3, say wsdl:import and wsdl:include elements.


Suggested Alternate Solution ..


WSDL composition model offers four simple possibilities: including
description, importing description, importing XML Schema and Embedding XML
Schema.

The goal is to describe the visibility of XML Schema components in the WSDL
Description component for these four possibilities. In simple terms
(recapitulating from different parts of the spec), at the component level
(just one level, in one product):

1.	Including Description (description/include) - XML Schema components
in the included Description component's {element declarations} and {type
definitions} properties are visible.
2.	Importing Description (description/import) - None of the XML Schema
Components in the imported Description component are visible.
3.	Importing XML Schema (description/xs:import) - Element Declaration
and Type Definition components in the imported namespace are visible.
4.	Embedded XML Schema (description/types/xs:schema) - Element
Declaration and Type Definition components in the embedded XML Schema are
visible.

Transcribing this into a table:


WSDL Composition
XML Representation
Visibility of XML Schema Components
Including Description    	description/include    	XML Schema
components in the included Description component's {element declarations}
and {type definitions} properties are visible	
Importing Description 	description/import    	None of the XML Schema
Components in the imported Description component are visible	
Importing XML Schema    	description/xs:import    	Element
Declaration and Type Definition components in the imported namespace are
visible	
Embedded XML Schema    	description/types/xs:schema    	Element Declaration
and Type Definition components in the embedded XML Schema are visible	
 

Let me frame the questions that we should ask ..

*	Revisit LC75s? 


*	if Yes .. 

*	Accept the suggested alternate table? 

*	Location of the table: section 3 or appendix 

*	Normative or non-normative?

*	Or, treat this material as purely editorial

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
asirv at webmethods dot com
http://www.webmethods.com/ <http://www.webmethods.com/>