RE: Question re: WSDL 2.o and (schema) xs:import

James,
 
Perhaps you were thinking of wsdl:include or xs:include?

-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:20 PM
To: RDBMS
Cc: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); www-ws-desc@w3.org;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question re: WSDL 2.o and (schema) xs:import



James, 

We don't want to change the behavior of <xs:import>. It is not
transitive in XSD. You need to explicitly import a namespace in any XSD
that refers to it. 

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/ 



"RDBMS" <RDBMS@aol.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 


06/28/2005 08:32 PM 


To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

cc
<dbooth@hp.com> 

Subject
Question re: WSDL 2.o and (schema) xs:import

	




I've been doing some research on the draft of WSDL 2.0 and found the
WSDL 2.0 editorial note re: "xs:import not being transitive". 
  
I am somewhat concerned as xs:import (both cascading through and across
multiple target namespaces) is both a valuable and critical capability
of XML Schema. 
  
The ability to import a cascading chain of namespace qualified resources
from multiple schemas (and multiple targetNamespaces) is core to reuse
of modular schema artifacts. 
  
I am not sure why this capability would be eliminated from WSDL ? 
  
I've not found further annotation as to discussion or possible
resolution of the question and was hoping that you might provide
additional insight or perspective, or possibly help to influence the
WSDL 2.0 to consider how important this capability is. 
  
Thank you ! 
James Bean
 <mailto:RDBMS@aol.com> RDBMS@aol.com