[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [provision] SchemaType#ref. (was "Draft 15 of the SPML XSDs")
If a <schema> element does NOT have a "ref" attribute, then MAY a provider omit the content of the <schema> element? Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: >Regardless of whether the ref attribute is a location of just a URN, the ><spml:schema> may omit the profile specific schema information. The client >and service would either retrieve the schema information from the location >or use schema information known a priori. > >For the XSD Profile, I think it is unlikely that an SPML client is going to >do anything useful with XSDs retrieved from a location defined in the ref >attribute. Most likely it is going to use the ref to match to a known XSD >schema regardless if it is a URN or an actual XSD location. > >Jeff Bohren > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gary P Cole [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] >Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 3:13 PM >To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [provision] SchemaType#ref. (was "Draft 15 of the SPML XSDs") > >So.... > >If a <schema> element has a "ref" attribute and if the value of the >"ref" attribute is a *location*, then MAY a provider omit the content of >the <schema> element (perhaps based on the assumption that the requestor >can access the XSD file resource that location specifies)? > >If a <schema> element has a "ref" attribute and if the value of the >"ref" attribute is an *identifier*, then MAY a provider omit the content >of the <schema> element (on the assumption that the requestor >will/should/must recognize the identifier and know the schema a priori)? > >Or SHOULD a provider *always* include the schema (as content of the ><schema> element)? > >Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: > > > >>I would prefer to leave it as single attribute. The reference can be a real >>location or URN that both parties know a priori. >> >>Jeff Bohren >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Gary P Cole [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:39 PM >>To: provision@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: [provision] SchemaType#ref. (was "Draft 15 of the SPML XSDs") >> >>XSD 15 addresses every issue in the list except 51, which concerns >>SchemaType#ref. >> >>(For the sake of brevity, I'll cut to the chase. Background from the >>email thread on this issue and some analysis are included below after my >>signature.) >> >>I propose that we replace "ref" with two separate attributes: >>"namespaceURI" and "location". >>An identifier such as "namespaceURI" could help the requestor to >>recognize included schema content. A location could actually replace >>included schema content. >> >>Perhaps we should go even further and make these exclusive options. >>SchemaType could offer a CHOICE between "namespaceURI" and "location". >> >>Gary >> >><BACKGROUND> >>SchemaType extends ExtensibleType, so it may contain anything. >>TargetType contains an element of SchemaType named "schema" >>that ordinarily contains the actual schema data. >> >>SchemaType#ref is defined as optional attribute of type "anyURI". >>As a URI, #ref could be just an *identifier* or #ref could be a *location*. >> >>On 12/14 I asked two questions: >> >>1) When the value of the SchemaType#ref attribute is the *location* of a >>schema document, is this an *alternative* to including the schema >>document as content of the <schema> element? >> >>2) Would it be clearer to have separate attributes (as we do for >>CapabilityType): >>- one that identifies the schema ('namespaceURI') and >>- another that gives the location of a schema document ('location')? >> >>Jeff Bohren replied: >> >>If the schema is defined by inclusion instead of reference, the schema >>would be included in the target returned by the list target response. >>For instance for XSD documented schemas: >> >><spml:target> >> <spml:schema> >> <xsd:schema>...</xsd:schema> >> </spml:schema> >> ... >></spml:target> >> >></BACKGROUND> >> >><ANALYSIS> >>I *think* this answers "yes" to question #1, although it is not >>completely clear to me. >> >>1) Is reference is intended to be strictly alternative to inclusion? >>- A reference *location* could replace included schema content, >> but a reference *identifier* may not. >>- A reference *identifier* may help the requestor to recognize an >>included schema, >> so an identifier would be useful even with inclusion. >>- A reference (identifier or location) could conflict with included >>schema content. >> If so, how should a requestor handle this? >>- Should inclusion and reference be true alternatives (exclusive >>choices)? >> (For example, should TargetType perhaps offer a CHOICE >> between a SchemaType element and a "ref"?) >> >>For CapabilityType we use two separate attributes (both of type anyURI) >>to distinguish "namespaceURI" (required) from "location" (optional). >>It seems to me that it would be appropriate (and much clearer) to do the >>same thing for SchemaType. >></ANALYSIS> >> >>Jeff Bohren wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Attached is draft 15 of the SPML XSDs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: provision-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: provision-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: provision-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: provision-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: provision-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: provision-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: provision-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: provision-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]