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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
