- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:09:17 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF6C51C242.07FB0907-ON85256FFF.00556E8B-85256FFF.0058BDBA@ca.ibm.com>
LC64 [1] points out the ElementDeclaration and TypeDefinition are top-level components and so we should define URI-references for them. There was also a suggestion that we use Schema Component Designators [1] for this purpose. I reviewed the SCD spec and don't think they are a good solution for the following reasons: 1. WSDL 2.0 allows other XML type systems so we need a solution that doesn't depend on XML Schema 2. SCD itself solves a much more complex problem. It defines a syntax for any schema component. However, we are only interesting in top-level named elements and types, and these have simple QNames. I propose the following syntax. wsdl.elementDeclaration(uri, QName) wsdl.typeDefinition(uri, QName) where uri identifies the XML type system and QName identifies the element or type. For XML Schema, uri = http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema If we want to give XML Schema special status, we could allow the following shorthand (i.e. omit the uri): wsdl.elementDeclaration(QName) wsdl.typeDefinition(QName) Finally, SCD does have a designator for the schema-as-a-whole. For completeness, we should add: wsdl.description( ) or simply wsdl.description Comments? [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC64 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/ 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/
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 16:09:27 UTC