RE: [wsdm] Problem defining Relationship XML

["Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>]

I used the XML Beans validator when I developed part1. However, for part
2 I need to import a schema that does not have a network address. I get
a Java exception if I send the file in unmodified.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Springer, Ian P. 
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:24 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Problem defining Relationship XML

There are several robust opensource schema validators that you might
try:
 
Apache XMLBeans: http://xmlbeans.apache.org/ Apache Xerces:
http://xml.apache.org/xerces2-j/ Sun MultiSchema Validator:
https://msv.dev.java.net/
 
I highly recommend XMLBeans' validator. It gives very descriptive error
messages. Not only can it validate instance docs, but it can also
validate schemas themselves (something which makes sense to do for all
the spec schemas and wsdl types sections prior to release of 1.0).
 
Ian

________________________________

From: Fred Carter [mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com]
Sent: Fri 11/19/2004 5:08 PM
To: Murray, Bryan P.
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Problem defining Relationship XML


Thus quoth Murray, Bryan P. (~ 11/19/2004 4:47 PM ~)... 

	I am having a problem defining a schema for Relationship that
validates.
	The pseudo-schema for Relationship (from MUWS part2) is the
following:
	
	<muws-p2-xs:Relationship>
	  <muws-p2-xs:Name>xs:string</muws-p2-xs:Name> ?
	  <muws-p2-xs:Type>muws-xs:RelationshipType</muws-p2-xs:Type>
	  <muws-p2-xs:Participant Role="xs:anyURI">
	    <muws-p1-xs:ManageabilityEndpointReference/> *
	    <muws-p1-xs:ResourceID/> ?
	    {any}*
	  </muws-p2-xs:Participant>
	  <muws-p2-xs:Participant/>+
	  <muws-p2-xs:AccessEndpointReference>
	    wsa:EndpointReferenceType
	  </muws-p2-xs:AccessEndpointReference>?
	  {any}*
	</muws-p2-xs:Relationship>
	
	
	
	The problem I have run into is in defining the ParticipantType
	complexType. I have tried the following:
	
	  <xs:complexType name="RelationshipParticipantType">
	    <xs:sequence>
	      <xs:element
ref="muws-p1-xs:ManageabilityEndpointReference"
	                  minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
	      <xs:element ref="muws-p1-xs:ResourceId"
	                  minOccurs="0"/>
	      <xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
	              namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
	    </xs:sequence>
	    <xs:attribute name="Role" type="xs:anyURI" use="required"/>
	    <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/>
	  </xs:complexType>
	
	The error I am getting is that the 'any' is causing ambiguity
because
	there are no required elements - and all optional elements are
from the
	part1 namespace. All I need is a required element in any
namespace to
	make it validate.
	
	Does anyone have any suggestions?
	  

A better schema processor?

When I attempt to validate the following with XmlSpy (v2005)

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema>  elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified" xmlns:muws-p1-xs="urn:bar"
targetNamespace="urn:bar">
	<xs:element name="foo">
		<xs:annotation>
			<xs:documentation>Comment describing your root
element</xs:documentation>
		</xs:annotation>
	</xs:element>
	<xs:element name="ManageabilityEndpointReference"/>
	<xs:element name="ResourceId"/>
	<xs:complexType name="RelationshipParticipantType">
    <xs:sequence>
      <xs:element ref="muws-p1-xs:ManageabilityEndpointReference"
                  minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      <xs:element ref="muws-p1-xs:ResourceId"
                  minOccurs="0"/>
      <xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"
              namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
    </xs:sequence>
    <xs:attribute name="Role" type="xs:anyURI" use="required"/>
    <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other"/>
   </xs:complexType>
  </xs:schema>


I had no problem.  When I change the ##other (highlighted in red) to
##nay, it complained that that would make things non-deterministic.
Which makes sense...


I know this isn't much help, but I think it means you're right and that
?+*&%#$ schema processor leaves a bit to be desired...


/fred


	Bryan
	
	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/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.
	
	
	  



--
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301

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/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.