Re: [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

can you expand on why the semantics
of xsd:import are any easier to support than xsd:include?  I don't
see much of a distinction to conclude either are particularly easier to
support.

sgg

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

Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>

11/30/2004 10:10 AM

Please respond to
tom

To	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
cc	Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [wsrf] [WSRF Issue 81] clarification

I remember the wsi-bp discussions the same as Anish.
 WS-I bp does allow 
xsd:include in the type section.

However, the wsrm group is allowed to decide on its own not to use xsd:
include in our specifications.  Personally, I think that import
has semantics which are easier to maintain on the long run than include.

Tom Rutt
Fujitsu

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> 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/>
>> ++++++++
>>
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt                
email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774
5133