OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?


Title: Message
I don't see a compelling reason for the sentence you are referring to in 1.3.2.1 to exist.  I favor undoing that change also.
 
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:06 PM
To: Von Riegen, Claus; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?

Well, that's two votes for undoing the change. Anyone else?
 
Tom - could we include this on the agenda, please?
-----Original Message-----
From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Mon 08-Dec-03 23:08
To: Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall that discussion. Was there a change request or was this part of the editorial review?
The "sequence" in section 1.3.2.1 is in fact the XML Schema sequence and, thus, means that the element order matters.
I believe that we have to undo this change.
 
Claus
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Montag, 8. Dezember 2003 12:56
To: Von Riegen, Claus; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?

Section 1.3.2.1 contains the sentence: "Note that although the word "sequence" is used, there is no requirement for a specific order to these elements.". We added that sentence after I questioned the previous wording of this section.
-----Original Message-----
From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Mon 08-Dec-03 22:16
To: Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?

It is not clear to me that we made such a decision. Which section of the specification states that the element order doesn't matter?

Claus

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony.Rogers@ca.com [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Sonntag, 7. Dezember 2003 12:08
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?


When we decided to state that we would accept the contents of a structure (using the term loosely) in any order, we did not update the XML schema to reflect this. Consequently, the schema is now inconsistent with what we say in the specification.

The schema uses xsd:sequence, and that specifies that the elements must occur in the order they appear within the sequence specification.

I not sufficiently familiar with XML schema to be certain that there is no simple way around this issue, but I fear that this is the case. Especially if we wish to specify that we are unconcerned with the order of the elements, but that any occurrences of a particular element must be together.

For example, if we consider businessInfo, which currently contains:

<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element ref="uddi:name" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="uddi:description" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<xsd:element ref="uddi:serviceInfos" minOccurs="0"/>
</xsd:sequence>

we note that it will only accept one or more names, followed by zero or more descriptions, followed by zero or one serviceInfos.

If we follow what is specified in the current version of the UDDI V3 Specification, however, it should accept a businessInfo that contains a description followed by a name - right?

The interesting part comes when we consider a businessInfo that contains a description followed by a name, followed by another description - do we want to accept or reject such a construct? It is not all that difficult to construct a schema to do either (I think), but neither schema is particularly easy to read.

I would assume that the canonical form of the XML (as required, for example, for verification of a digital signature) would be the form that is accepted by the current schema.

The more I ponder this, the more I wonder if we should undo that particular change to the specification, and thereby require that the elements of a structure be in a specific order. It's less flexible, but it's simpler.

What do you think?

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]