Re: [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

WS-I BP 1.0/1.1 does *not* say that one should not use xsd:include.

The requirements in section 4.2.2 [1] are meant to prevent someone from 
using xsd:import to import WSDL docs and using wsdl:import to import XSD 
docs. It does not talk about xsd:include since there is nothing 
equivalent to that in WSDL.

Essentially:
1) xsd:import and xsd:include follow the rules defined by XML Schema and 
import/include schemas in the types section of WSDL. Such 
xsd:import/xsd:include can occur only as a child of 
wsdl:definitions/wsdl:types/xsd:schema
2) wsdl:import imports WSDL documents and *not* XSD docs and must occur 
only as child element of wsdl:definitions

These requirement seem to be NOOP/obvious, but during the discussion in 
WS-I BP WG, it was revealed that this was indeed a interop concern as 
some folks used xsd:import/wsdl:import to do weird things -- hence their 
inclusion.

HTH.

-Anish
--

[1] 
http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#WSDL_and_Schema_Import

Steve Graham wrote:

> 
> Hi Chris:
> As a co-author on WS-I BP 1.1, could you provide some insight into R2002?
> 
> sgg
> 
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
> 
> 
> 
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
> 
> 11/29/2004 03:22 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion in this area revolves around how to interpret the 
> following statement from WS-I BP:
> 
> R2002 To import XML Schema Definitions, a DESCRIPTION MUST use the XML 
> Schema "import" statement.
> 
> If the first "import" is interpreted to mean "reference external", then 
> this statement requires the use of import rather than include.
> 
> If the first "import" is interpreted to mean the definition provided by 
> XML Schema for the import statement, then it doesn't have that meaning 
> but also becomes a meaningless statement.
> 
> Rich
> 
> *"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>*
> 
> 11/29/2004 03:03 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the statement about WS-I was made at the October 
> face-to-face although my memory is notoriously faulty. I searched 
> through email and meeting minutes and did not find discussion of this 
> point.
>  
> Unless someone can point out the requirement in WS-I BP, I suggest we 
> remove that statement from the issue.
>  
> Bryan
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Monday, November 29, 2004 11:14 AM*
> To:* wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org*
> Subject:* [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification
> 
> 
> The current issues list contains an entry for WSRF 81 that includes:
> 
> *Issue WSRF81: Recommendation to change WSDL documents*
> 
> Some tooling does not correctly handle xsd:include.
> 
> WS-I compliance requires that xsd:include not be used.
> 
> */Specifications/*
> 
> ·        All WSDL documents
> 
> */Notes/*
> 
> _http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200410/msg00113.html_
> 
> _http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrf/200410/msg00120.html_
> 
> */Proposed Recommendations/*
> 
> Change all WSDL documents so that xsd:include is not used. This can be 
> accomplished by changing the namespace of the schema in the WSDL types 
> section and using xsd:import instead.
> 
> */Status: Open since November 15, 2004 /*
> 
> */Contact: Glenn Wassen, Abdeslem Djaoui/*
> 
> */Cross Reference: /*
> 
> Now, the notion "WS-I compliance requires that xsd:include not be used." 
> is puzzling.  I cannot see reference in WS-I BP 1.1 that forbids use of 
> xsd:include, please clarify.
> 
> sgg
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
>