Re: Inlining/Importing XML Schema into a WSDL 2.0 Description

Thanks for the point-by-point clarification, Amie.
My primary confusion was driven by the statement about inlining XSDs that
"the components have to be "defined" [not just declared] in the schema
itself". I had interpreted this to be the fact that the complete definition
of the components [type definition] also has to be within the same schema .I
get the picture now.

rgds,
Ram

On 9/26/06, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:30:59 -0700
> "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Question 1
> >-----------------
> >Paragraph 2 of Section 3.2.1 [Inlining XML Schema] states "Only
> >components defined and declared in the schema itself and components
> >included by it via xs:include are referenceable. Specifically
> >components that the schema imports via xs:import are NOT
> >referenceable.".
>
> This is merely an attempt to clarify the behavior of XML Schema itself,
> which is notoriously difficult to understand.  Since we are talking about
> embedding schema, there are some edge cases where we need to expressly
> clarify.
>
> >Does this mean that the elements within the inlined XSD should also
> >have their type definitions in the same XSD ?
>
> No.  The import brings the type information into the schema, where it can
> be freely used.  However, an import is not an export; the imported
> information is not visible to a document which imports the schema document,
> which is what an inlined schema is effectively defined to be.
>
> >Question 2
> >------------------
> >Paragraph 1 of Section 3.1.1 [Importing XML Schema] of Part 1 states
> >"Only components in the imported namespace are referenceable in the
> >WSDL 2.0document."
> >
> >a) Does this imply that the type definition of the element also needs
> >to be within the imported namespace ?
>
> No.
>
> >b) If (a) is false [i.e. there is no such restriction], does the type
> >definition needs to be within the same XSD ?
>
> No.
>
> > Can it be defined within
> >one of the XSDs imported within the main XSD?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Be it true/false, would it be better to state this explicitly in the
> >specification ?
>
> No, in my opinion.  We cannot possibly treat all of the potential
> consequences of treating an inlined schema as though it were imported; all
> we can do is try to set the general rule.
>
> >But the fact about (b) is something that
> >could be mentioned in the spec, esp. because the specification states
> >about more retrictive semantics on inlining of the XSD.[it says that
> >"Only components "defined and declared" in the schema itself and
> >components included by it via xs:include are referenceable.". I assume
> >that this means that the type definition of these elements need to be
> >in the same XSD]
>
> This assumption is incorrect; I see no reason to include an explicit
> statement that its consequences are also incorrect.
>
> Amy!
> (not speaking for the working group, but as a participant)
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Senior Architect
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
>



-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor