axis-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Butchart <b.butch...@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject Re: schema imports
Date Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:09:40 GMT
I don't read it that way as I think the word "schema" in  the phrase "are
present in the schema"  referes to the "XMLSchema" earlier on  - ",..which
consists of (at a minimum) the set of schema
components (definitions and declarations) required for that ·assessment".
Since transitive closure is possible in Cory's example across the two schema
elements then I would say that all components necessary for assesment are
present in this definition of "schema".


Ben



----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>
To: <axis-user@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: schema imports


Personally, I find the Schema specification pretty much infathomable. Below
is the text that I think describes the situation. Based on the sentence "no
element information item can be fully assessed unless all the components
required by any aspect of its (potentially recursive) ·assessment· are
present in the schema", I would say that your vendor is correct, because
the "schema" (as defined by the <schema> element) doesn't have the type
definition defined within it.

But I'm not a schema expert...

Anne


·assessment· is defined with reference to an ·XML Schema· (note not a
·schema document·) which consists of (at a minimum) the set of schema
components (definitions and declarations) required for that ·assessment·.
This is not a circular definition, but rather a post facto observation: no
element information item can be fully assessed unless all the components
required by any aspect of its (potentially recursive) ·assessment· are
present in the schema.

As specified above, each schema component is associated directly or
indirectly with a target namespace, or explicitly with no namespace. In the
case of multi-namespace documents, components for more than one target
namespace will co-exist in a schema.

Processors have the option to assemble (and perhaps to optimize or
pre-compile) the entire schema prior to the start of an ·assessment·
episode, or to gather the schema lazily as individual components are
required. In all cases it is required that:
    * The processor succeed in locating the ·schema components·
transitively required to complete an ·assessment· (note that components
derived from ·schema documents· can be integrated with components obtained
through other means);
    * no definition or declaration changes once it has been established;
    * if the processor chooses to acquire declarations and definitions
dynamically, that there be no side effects of such dynamic acquisition that
would cause the results of ·assessment· to differ from that which would
have been obtained from the same schema components acquired in bulk.
NOTE: the ·assessment· core is defined in terms of schema components at the
abstract level, and no mention is made of the schema definition syntax
(i.e. <schema>). Although many processors will acquire schemas in this
format, others may operate on compiled representations, on a programmatic
representation as exposed in some programming language, etc.

The obligation of a schema-aware processor as far as the ·assessment· core
is concerned is to implement one or more of the options for ·assessment·
given below in Assessing Schema-Validity (§5.2). Neither the choice of
element information item for that ·assessment·, nor which of the means of
initiating ·assessment· are used, is within the scope of this specification.


At 11:28 AM 8/21/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Given the following WSDL document (obviously paraphrased):
>
><definitions xmlns:foo="foo" xmlns:bar="bar">
>         <types>
>                 <schema targetNamespace="foo">
>                         <complexType name="complexFoo">
>                                 <element name="elementFoo"
> type="bar:complexBar"/>
>                         </complexType>
>                 </schema>
>                 <schema targetNamespace="bar">
>                         <complexType name="complexBar">
>                                 ...
>                         </complexType>
>                 <schema>
>         </types>
>       ...
><definitions>
>
>Is the reference to element complexBar from namespace "bar" valid in
>namespace "foo" (when elementFoo is of type complexBar) or do I need an
>explicit schema import declaration and if so -- how is that done
>here?  I'm working with a vendor who is disputing the validity of WSDL
>formed much like this but Axis and .Net swallow the WSDL just fine and
>interact with my service just as I would expect.
>
>Futhermore, they're attempting to tell me that the namespace must
>reference something concrete.  Their assertions seem a bit cracked induced
>but I'm looking for someone to back me up here before I act the fool.
>
>Thanks,
>Cory Wilkerson



Mime
View raw message