Fwd: Extending Types

I'm considering this (http://www.w3schools.com/Schema/el_group.asp) as
a source for named groups.. :-)

In this case, I understand that in the "child" xsd file I would
compound a new complexType using parts already defined in
definitions.xsd, right ?

Actually, in my case, I need to create a complexType that will be
extended by other people, just overwriting (or "implementing") the
BusinessContent tag. I don't want people have to care about how to
assemble parts to create a correct message.. I just want them to focus
on the specialized part...
However, I have some freedom to change the structure... for example, I
could move the CustomInformation out of BusinessContent, if it could
make things easier.. but I think keeping it would be more
challenging.. :)

Am I too high ? :)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Flavio Cordova <flavio.cordova@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Extending Types
To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>


Well.. I have changed some things but that's how it looks like now:

In definition.xsd

DEFINITION:
   <xs:complexType name="AbstractBusinessContentType" abstract="true">
       <xs:sequence>
               <xs:element name="CustomInformation">
                                    ....
               </xs:element>
       </xs:sequence>
   </xs:complexType>

ELEMENT:
<xs:element name="BusinessContent"
type="AbstractBusinessContentType"></xs:element>


in item.xsd, I have this:

       <xs:redefine schemaLocation="../definition.xsd">
               <xs:complexType name="AbstractBusinessContentType">
                       <xs:complexContent>
                               <xs:extension base="AbstractBusinessContentType">
                                       <xs:sequence>
                                               <xs:element name="Code"
type="xs:string"></xs:element>
                                               <xs:element
name="Description" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
                                       </xs:sequence>
                               </xs:extension>
                       </xs:complexContent>
               </xs:complexType>
       </xs:redefine>

But it doesn't work too.. When I create the XML the validator shows
that Code is not a valid child for BusinessContent.

   <BusinessContent>
     <Code>UN</Code> <!-- ### Invalid child ### -->
     <Description>Unidade</Description>
     <CustomInformation>
       <Table name="labInfo">
               <Record>
                       <Field name="quanticMass">120</Field>
                       <Field name="fusionMethod">Nuclear</Field>
               </Record>
       </Table>
     </CustomInformation>
   </BusinessContent>

Talking about compositions or inheritance, I don't know exactly how it
would work (I mean, I know the concepts, but I really don't what it
would do with my xml.. :D)

I'll try to find something about named model groups to see if I could
use them...


On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
>> I have an XML that looks like this:
>>
>> <MyMessage>
>>   <HeaderInfo>
>>      ....
>>   </HeaderInfo>
>>   <BusinessContent>
>>     #someSpecificInformation# <!-- This will be defined in a
>> "child" XSD
>>     <GenericInfo>
>>        <information>a</information>
>>     </GenericInfo>
>>   </BusinessContent>
>> </MyMessage>
>>
>> In a file called definition.xsd, I defined the whole
>> structure, including the BusinessContent ComplexType.. Then,
>> I defined another XSD, called item.xsd, where I'd like to
>> define only the content of the BusinessContent, so I did
>> something like this:
>>
>> <xs:include schemaLocation="definition.xsd"></xs:include>
>> <xs:complexType name="BusinessContentTypeImpl">
>>   <xs:complexContent>
>>     <xs:extension base="GenericBusinessContentType">
>>       <xs:sequence>
>>         <xs:element name="Code" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
>>         <xs:element name="Description" type="xs:string"></xs:element>
>>       </xs:sequence>
>>     </xs:extension>
>>   </xs:complexContent>
>> </xs:complexType>
>
> What does the element declaration for BusinessContent look like? Is it using
> the GenericBusinessContentType or BusinessContentTypeImpl? You can only use
> the BusinessContentTypeImpl content model if the type is declared as
> BusinessContentTypeImpl either in the element declaration, or in an xsi:type
> attribute in the instance.
>
> Have you considered using named model groups instead? As with any
> object-oriented design, people sometimes overlook that composition is more
> powerful than inheritance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
>
>
>>
>> When I create an XML (adding tags Code and Description), I
>> get an error because tags Code and Description are not valid
>> children for BusinessContent, although I've extended it...
>>
>> I'd also like to force extension of BusinessContent. Then I
>> tried to use the abstract attribute, but then I couldn't add
>> the <GenericInfo> child...
>>
>> So, my questions are:
>> 1) how should I extend BusinessContent
>> (GenericBusinessContentType) so I could keep the current
>> elements (GenericInfo) add more elements..
>> 2) how could I force a "child" xsd file to import the
>> definitions.xsd and extend BusinessContent.
>>
>> Thanks !
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:21:40 UTC