Add mine to the
vote.
Luc
Make that
three.
-----Original
Message----- From: Rogers, Tony
[mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent: 08 December 2003 13:06 To: Von Riegen, Claus;
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML
schema is now inconsistent with the spec?
Well, that's two votes for undoing the change. Anyone
else?
Tom - could we include this on the agenda,
please?
-----Original Message----- From: Von Riegen, Claus
[mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] Sent: Mon 08-Dec-03 23:08 To: Rogers, Tony;
uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current XML
schema is now inconsistent with the spec?
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.
-----Original
Message----- From: Rogers,
Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent: Montag, 8. Dezember 2003
12:56 To: Von Riegen,
Claus; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Our current
XML schema is now inconsistent with the spec?
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.
|