W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Ambiguity in Part regarding built-in XML Schema types

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:51:05 -0500
To: "John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com
Message-Id: <20061102135105.10c4e2b5.alewis@tibco.com>


"primitive + derived" uses the terminology of the schema working group, and as John here clearly illustrates, it is understandable to readers.

"Simple" is ambiguous, and could mean "primitive only".

Recommend that we replace the cited sentence in section 3.1 as follows:

"A WSDL 2.0 document that refers to any element declaration or type definition component of the XML Schema namespace, except the built-in primitive and derived datatypes, MUST import http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema."

This change is minor (s/simple types/primitive and derived datatypes/) and I would rate it as editorial, but it clarifies in a useful fashion for implementors.

(note that this is likely to bounce from woden-dev, if that list has restricted posting)
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:20:53 +0000
"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com> wrote:

>Part 1 seems to be ambiguous about which data types from the XML Schema
>namespace are automatically available in the component model, without
>the need to import the XML Schema namespace.
>Part 1 Section 3.1 says:
>"A WSDL 2.0 document that refers to any element declaration or type
>definition component of the XML Schema namespace, except the built-in
>simple types, MUST import http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema."
>Part 1 Table 2-1 says of {type definitions}:
>"In addition, the built-in datatypes defined by XML Schema ... namely
>the nineteen primitive datatypes .... and the twenty-five derived
>Table 2-1 uses the terms "primitive" and "derived" which are
>consistent with the Built-in datatypes section in XML Schema Part 2:
>Datatypes at [1] and the table implies that 44 built-in XML Schema
>datatypes (19 primitive plus 25 derived) are available in {type
>definitions} without requiring an import of the XML Schema namespace.
>Section 3.1 uses the term "built-in simple types" which is
>inconsistent with Table 2-1 and is not mentioned under Built-in
>datatypes at [1]. I'm not sure if "simple" means "primitive" only or
>"primitive" and "derived" so it's not clear whether this section
>implies that 19 or 44 built-in XML Schema types are automatically
>available in {type definitions}.
>Can the working group please comment on this.
>John Kaputin.

Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 18:51:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:03 UTC