I'm
sorry, but I don't recall that discussion. Was there a change request or was
this part of the editorial review?
The
"sequence" in section 1.3.2.1 is in fact the XML Schema sequence and, thus,
means that the element order matters.
I
believe that we have to undo this change.
Claus
Section 1.3.2.1 contains the sentence: "Note
that although the word "sequence" is used, there is no requirement for a
specific order to these elements.". We added that sentence after I
questioned the previous wording of this section.
-----Original Message----- From: Von Riegen,
Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] Sent: Mon 08-Dec-03 22:16
To: Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Cc:
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML schema is now
inconsistent with the spec?
It is not clear to me that we made such a decision. Which
section of the specification states that the element order doesn't
matter?
Claus
-----Original Message----- From:
Tony.Rogers@ca.com [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent:
Sonntag, 7. Dezember 2003 12:08 To:
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [uddi-spec] Our current XML
schema is now inconsistent with the spec?
When we decided to
state that we would accept the contents of a structure (using the term
loosely) in any order, we did not update the XML schema to reflect this.
Consequently, the schema is now inconsistent with what we say in the
specification.
The schema uses xsd:sequence, and that specifies that
the elements must occur in the order they appear within the sequence
specification.
I not sufficiently familiar with XML schema to be
certain that there is no simple way around this issue, but I fear that this
is the case. Especially if we wish to specify that we are unconcerned with
the order of the elements, but that any occurrences of a particular element
must be together.
For example, if we consider businessInfo, which
currently contains:
<xsd:sequence> <xsd:element
ref="uddi:name" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xsd:element
ref="uddi:description" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xsd:element ref="uddi:serviceInfos"
minOccurs="0"/> </xsd:sequence>
we note that it will only
accept one or more names, followed by zero or more descriptions, followed by
zero or one serviceInfos.
If we follow what is specified in the
current version of the UDDI V3 Specification, however, it should accept a
businessInfo that contains a description followed by a name -
right?
The interesting part comes when we consider a businessInfo
that contains a description followed by a name, followed by another
description - do we want to accept or reject such a construct? It is not all
that difficult to construct a schema to do either (I think), but neither
schema is particularly easy to read.
I would assume that the
canonical form of the XML (as required, for example, for verification of a
digital signature) would be the form that is accepted by the current
schema.
The more I ponder this, the more I wonder if we should undo
that particular change to the specification, and thereby require that the
elements of a structure be in a specific order. It's less flexible, but it's
simpler.
What do you think?
To unsubscribe from this mailing
list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php.
|