RE: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema

Lawrence/Jonathan,

The technical problem is that extension elements are allowed anywhere and 
if you describe that using choice then the resulting schema is 
non-deterministic, which is apparently a very bad thing.

The resolution of this issue was to leave the schema as it is and add 
rules to the validator. (more coding for Woden)

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/05/2005 03:20 PM

To
Lawrence Mandel/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema






Your schema appears to limit extension elements to 
post-import/include/types, right?  We looked at that before and found it 
unacceptable.  We have looked at several different ways to describe the 
order of top-level elements in Schema several times, including using 
substitution groups, but we?ve never found a solution that didn?t impose 
other restrictions.
 

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:10 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: WSDL 2.0 element order enforcement in schema
 

While looking at the WSDL 2.0 schema today I came across a question about 
the ordering of elements in a WSDL 2.0 document. 

Section 2.1.2 of the WSDL 2.0 spec defines the following XML 
representation of WSDL 2.0, 

<description
     targetNamespace="xs:anyURI" >
 <documentation />*
 [ <import /> | <include /> ]*
 <types />?
 [ <interface /> | <binding /> | <service /> ]*
</description> 

This definition imposes ordering constraints on the elements in the WSDL 
2.0 document. The WSDL 2.0 schema does not currently enforce this 
ordering. The description type is defined as follows, 

<xs:complexType name='DescriptionType' >
   <xs:annotation>
     <xs:documentation>

        Please refer to the WSDL 2.0 specification for
                additional constraints on the contents of this type.
     </xs:documentation>
   </xs:annotation>
   <xs:complexContent>
     <xs:extension base='wsdl:ExtensibleDocumentedType' >
       <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' >
         <xs:element ref='wsdl:import' />
         <xs:element ref='wsdl:include' />
         <xs:element ref='wsdl:types'/>

          <xs:element ref='wsdl:interface' />
                      <xs:element ref='wsdl:binding' />
                      <xs:element ref='wsdl:service' />
         <xs:any namespace='##other' processContents='lax' />
       </xs:choice>
                <xs:attribute name='targetNamespace' type='xs:anyURI' 
use='required' />
     </xs:extension>
   </xs:complexContent>
 </xs:complexType>

The schema can be updated as follows to enforce the ordering outlined in 
the spec. 

<xs:complexType name='DescriptionType' > 
    <xs:annotation> 
      <xs:documentation> 
        Please refer to the WSDL 2.0 specification for 
        additional constraints on the contents of this type. 
      </xs:documentation> 
    </xs:annotation> 
    <xs:complexContent> 
      <xs:extension base='wsdl:ExtensibleDocumentedType' > 
        <xs:sequence> 
          <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' > 
            <xs:element ref='wsdl:import' /> 
            <xs:element ref='wsdl:include' /> 
          </xs:choice> 
          <xs:element ref='wsdl:types' minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/> 
          <xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded' > 
            <xs:element ref='wsdl:interface' /> 
            <xs:element ref='wsdl:binding' /> 
            <xs:element ref='wsdl:service' /> 
            <xs:any namespace='##other' processContents='lax' /> 
          </xs:choice> 
        </xs:sequence> 
        <xs:attribute name='targetNamespace' type='xs:anyURI' 
use='required' /> 
      </xs:extension> 
    </xs:complexContent> 
  </xs:complexType> 

Is the omission of ordering constraints from the schema intentional? Can 
someone update the schema to enforce section 2.1.2 of the spec? 


Thanks, 

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@ca.ibm.com