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

[Tom Bellwood <bellwood@us.ibm.com>]

I would recommend undoing this change as well.  We shouldn't be changing
the schema at this point unless there is some dire need, and  this doesn't
qualify IMO.

Thanks,
Tom Bellwood       Phone:  (512) 838-9957 (external);   TL:  678/9957
(internal)
Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC


"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> on 12/08/2003 05:55:48 AM

To:    "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>,
       <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
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
.