- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:46:28 -0500
- To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Cc: kliu@sap.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
These tables would be very useful in the Primer.
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 19:50, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> 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, 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 attempt is:
>
>
> 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/
--
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 00:46:34 UTC