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
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
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.
|