RE: [uddi-spec] Changes to UDDI Schemas and WSDL to support code generation

["Daniel Feygin" <feygin@unitspace.com>]

> The problem is that we are chasing a moving target. As Anne 
> and Ugo have pointed out JAX-RPC is moving towards a more 
> WS-I compliant version (and I'm not sure whether John was 
> basing his analysis on JAX-RPC 1.0 or 1.1), so it might be 
> that we spend time addressing issues which turn out no longer 
> to be issues.

This is exactly why I thought the alternative schema should not have
normative status.  At the same time we know that we need to make a simpler
schema, because this entire discussion originated out of the need to support
a particular popular platform.  We know that it is not there just yet, but
we are aware that at some point it is likely to get there (I'm referring to
JAX-RPC's spotty XML Schema support).  A BP or a TN can be produced to
correspond to a particular version of a particular technology without us
having to version the normative schema and WSDL whenever these technologies
mature to a new level of standards support.

> My point about clients and servers not being consistent about 
> what XML they validate, is due to the fact that I am 
> uncomfortable having two non-isomorphic schemas for the same 
> namespace.

The inconsistency you are pointing to arises out of the fact that standards
are not implemented consistently.  IMHO, XML instances based on both schemas
would correctly exist in the same namespace as they are instances of the
same object as described in the spec or in the normative schema.

> Matthew

Daniel