RE: [wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?

["Latha Srinivasan" <Latha.Srinivasan@hp.com>]

I am inclined to agree with Steve and William on this. It seems a lot easier to maintain a separate schema document for the WS-Resource spec. which would contain the type definitions for the WS-Resource related faults and the editors of WS-Resource will be responsible for this schema doc.

 

-Latha

 

 

---

From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:59 AM
To: Ian Robinson
Cc: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?

interesting.  What is the 
benefit of one wsrf.xsd? 

The 
downside is multiple writers and potential version skew.  If we put all the 
.xsd into one file, including the XSD for the message exchanges, it is going to 
be very big, and the editors will be stepping on each other's toes when making 
modifications to the separate specs. 

I would much prefer this to be a .xsd per spec. and therefore am inclined 
to -1 this proposal. 

sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On 
Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo 
Gloria/>
++++++++

Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>

11/18/2004 07:36 AM

To	wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[wsrf] Should we collapse WSRF schema documents?

Related to issues 50 ("WSRF50: Faults common to 
multiple specs in one
namespace ") and 81 ("WSRF81: recommendation to change 
WSDL documents"), I
would like to suggest that we collapse the schema for RP, 
RL, SG and BF
into a single document that can be imported into each 
WSDL.

On the telecon this week, we resolved issue 50: "WSRF50: Faults 
common to
multiple specs in one namespace "
with a recommendation to move 
the definition of the ‘ResourceUnknown’ fault
from WSRF-RP to the WS-Resource 
spec. A new schema document, referenced
from the WS-Resource specification, 
would be needed to contain the type
definition of this fault. This fault may 
be returned by a WS-Resource
following any message exchange, not just those 
protocol messages defined in
the WSRF specs.

Rather than create a new 
schema document, we could consider refactoring our
existing ones by 
collapsing the RP, RL, SG and BF schema into a single WSRF
schema 
document.

Any opinions?

Ian