That is right you need to define the element with a QName somewhere e.g in
schema or WSDL or some other standard form of description. Like I said I have
not hear dof defining QNames in text. I would not suggest to create a precedent
here.
PBM is fine since those QNames are propertiey element defined somewhere in
a schema which can be located and processed in order to understand what those
Qnames refer to.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vambenepe,
William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com]
Sent: Wed 11/17/2004 12:08 AM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [wsdm] please fix status capability in
MUWS...
I don't understand. QName is a simple type defined by XML
Schema, just like anyURI. Why can't we define an element of this type? BTW,
the "problem" you see would also apply to:
<pbm:Match>xs:QName</pbm:Match> (defined in
correlatable properties) wouldn't it?
But I don't see what the problem is.
Or is your problem not with elements of type xs:Qname but
with the way we define specific QNames when we do? Are you saying that
when we do that we can't just do it in text but we have to define an actual
element by that QName in schema?
William
It should
be
<OperationalStatus>{any}</OperationalStatus>
instead of <OperationalStatus>xs:QName</OperationalStatus>
QNames cannot just hang out there.
They have to be declared in schema, WSDL, policy or some other document.
Declaring them merely in the text is unheard of so far. I suggest we don't do
it.
Therefore there should be XML
element declarations which QNames correspond to the intended status
values. e.g.
element with muws-xs:Available
QName corresponds to available status.
-- Igor
Sedukhin ..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 ..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY
11749