ISSUE 41: Discussion and Proposals

["Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>]

Hi Everyone,

 

In last week’s discussion I promised to review the 2.1.1 spec, to see if we could, in good conscience, define the standard behavior when generating schemas to be to generate a schema with elementFormDefault=”qualified”, or whether this would constitute a breaking change.

 

The good news is, I believe we are 100% free when defining the behavior when generating meta-information from Java interfaces.  The 2.1.1 spec deals only with the generation of static SDOs from an existing XSD, not with the use of static SDOs as sources of information.

 

On the other hand, the it is clearly implied that elementFormDefault=”qualified” is not the default behavior when the metadata comes through the API.    The clearest argument here is two tables at the beginning of chapter 10.  It is also the case that none of the examples of generated XML use qualified element names other then when referring to root elements.  Furthermore, although chapter 9 defines the mapping *from* XSD *to* SDO, none of the mapping tables references elementFormDefault.   To me, this more or less ties our hands when types are defined through the API.

 

This leaves us with 2 things that we can add:  the xmlUri openContentProperty that can be used when defining properties through the API, and the Java annotation:

 

I hope that the Java annotation will not be very controversial:

 

/*

* Copyright(C) OASIS(R) 2005,2010. All Rights Reserved.

* OASIS trademark, IPR and other policies apply.

*/

package org.oasisopen.sdo.annotations;

 

import java.lang.annotation.ElementType;

import java.lang.annotation.Retention;

import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy;

import java.lang.annotation.Target;

 

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)

@Target(ElementType.PACKAGE)

public @interface SdoSchemaOptions {

        public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED};

        XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.QUALIFIED;

        XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED;

}

 

Here is the proposed wording:

5. @SdoSchemaOptions

If the @SdoSchemaOptions annotation is present as part of a package information file, then whenever the classes in this package are passed to any of the XSDHelper.generate methods, a Java implementation of SDO MUST include the corresponding attributes on the <schema> element of the generated XSD at least wherever the form default is “qualified”.  [JAV03070501] If the @SdoSchemaOptions annotation is not present , the SDO implementation’s default behavior MUST be for the <schema> to include an elementFormDefault=”qualified” attribute and MAY include an attributeFormDefault=”unqualified” attribute. [JAV03070503]

 

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)

@Target(ElementType.PACKAGE)

public @interface SdoSchemaOptions {

        public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED};

        XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.QUALIFIED;

        XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED;

}

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I would like to add the following to the SDO Core Spec.  I’m not so sure about the last line… do we want to use this property to specify the form, or only the URI?  If we go with the proposal here, we should also change the Java spec (section 3.6.6).

 

1. The table in section 8.2 should contain a new line:

xmlPropertyUri

URI String

Property

 

2. Add the following text to the end of section 8.2 (the text is more or less the same as for the java annotation

 

The xmlPropertyURI  controls the namespace of the element or attribute under which the property value will be serialized.  In this way, it is possible to specify that, in XML, namespace of the property differs from the namespace of the type (as would occur if the property were defined through an xs:ref element).  If the XML URI is left unspecified or set to an empty string, the property MUST be rendered unqualified. [COR….].