Doug:
I was
mostly concerned with how the ebMS schema should import from other namespaces,
i.e., what schema locations should be used for the imports. The feedback I got
from Chris suggests that we are in agreement. David, on the other hand, worried
about how the examples need to be updated. I pointed out that according to the
XML Schema Structure spec that the schemaLocation attributes in the examples are
no longer necessary because both the SOAP and ebMS namespaces are directly
resolvable.
The
problem I see in section 2.3.2 is that the information is obsolete and
misleading. It is no longer true that the SOAP namespace resolves to a schema
conforming to an early working draft of the W3C schema specification. I was
expressing my personal opionion yesterday and Duane and David seemed to concur.
Yours is the first dissenting opinion so far.
Regards,
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:47
AM
To:
Subject: Re: schema
in [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b, etc.
David and Arvola,
I'm confused. In our discussions yesterday, we generally agreed 2.3.2
should stay but include MAY instead of MUST. The sentiments was
primarily around the xsi:schemaLocation attribute doing no harm and avoiding
unnecessary changes to the document. Why has this come back again?
Chris has also commented on the three points Arvola originally
raised. Were his suggestions incorporated in the changing document and
schema?
I'm also concerned we're attempting to vote upon a moving target. If
we don't have something stable to designate a TC specification and
(potentially later) submit to OASIS, let's get things to that state before the
vote. In the meantime, let's push back on Karl and get a (slight)
extension to the submission deadline.
thanx,
doug
Arvola Chan wrote:
David: My personal opinion is that the entire section 2.3.2
xsi:schemaLocation attribute is obsolete and no longer necessary now
that the "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
namespace and the "http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/msg-header-2_0.xsd"
namespace can be directly resolvable (see strategies 3 and 5 in the
following excerpt from http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/). 4.3.2 How schema definitions are located on the
Web
Schema Representation Constraint: Schema
Document Location Strategy
Given a namespace
name (or none) and (optionally) a URI reference from
xsi:schemaLocation or xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation,
schema-aware processors may implement any combination of the following
strategies, in any order:
1 Do nothing, for
instance because a schema containing components for the given namespace name
is already known to be available, or because it is known in advance that no
efforts to locate schema documents will be successful (for example in
embedded systems);
2 Based on the
location URI, identify an existing schema document, either as a resource
which is an XML document or a <schema>
element information item, in some local schema
repository;
3 Based on the
namespace name, identify an existing schema document, either as a resource
which is an XML document or a <schema>
element information item, in some local schema
repository;
4 Attempt to resolve
the location URI, to locate a resource on the web which is or contains or
references a <schema>
element;
5 Attempt to resolve
the namespace name to locate such a resource.
Whenever possible configuration and/or
invocation options for selecting and/or ordering the implemented strategies
should be provided.
If we adopt this change, then all of the
examples should have the schema locations for the above two namespaces
removed. In addition, the introductory material in Appendix A also needs
tweaking. If we choose not to make the suggested
changes, we should at least update the cached schemas we have on the
ebxml-msg TC web site for the SOAP envelope and for
xmldsig-core-schema. Regards,-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <>
To: Arvola Chan <>
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2002
7:15 PM
Subject:
RE: schema in [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b, etc.
Did I get this right? It required
changes throughout the document.What did we decide
about xsi:schemaLocation? Do we need it in all the
examples?David.
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19,
2002 7:14 PM
To: David Fischer; Ian. C. Jones (E-mail); ebXML
Msg
Subject:
Re: schema in [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b, etc.
David: I am not
sure if we really want to leave the following unchanged in the
schema: 1.
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>
2.
<import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xlink.xsd"/>
3.
<import namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/envelope.xsd"/>
With respect to #1 above, please seehttp://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200202/msg00154.html
I think we should be referencing the
official version of xmldsig-core-schema.xsd instead of the snapshot we
have been maintaining at our web site.
With respect to #2 above, I am not able
to find any official xlink.xsd on the W3C web site. We will have to
continue to use our own version located at our web site unless someone
can identify the location for an official version of
xlink.xsd.
With respect to #3 above, please
see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200202/msg00056.html
We may want to use "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"
as the schema location since that is the official SOAP 1.1 schema. The
only potential issue is that the former includes Annotation and you have
previously mentioned that some parsers used by members of the interop
team cannot deal with Annotation.
I also notice two minor problems in the
References section:
1. The correct URL for BPSS should be
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS.pdf
2. Xlink has been a W3C Recommendation
since June 27, 2001. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/
-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer <>
To: Ian. C. Jones (E-mail)
<>
Cc: ebXML Msg <>
Date: Tuesday, February 19,
2002 1:02 PM
Subject: [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b
Ian, Here is what we have at the
moment. I have included both an MSWord document and a PDF.
The PDF has change control off and the MSWord has it
on. I did not accept the changes from
Rev A so both Rev A and Rev B changes show. In my copy, Rev A
changes are in Blue and Rev B changes are in Red. In MSWord, if
you put your cursor over the change, it will say "David V Fischer" on
the Rev A changes and "David Fischer" on the Rev B changes. It
would probably be appropriate, if anyone wants to make quick comments
in the next day or so, to use the line numbers in the
PDF.I
don't think either of these documents is appropriate to vote on.
Arvola said he would review the schema (Appendix A) and let me know
what further changes I need to make to align with his
copy.I
don't know where we are on the change control document. I have
not looked at anything since Rev A but I have made a couple of changes
based upon the conference calls and the eMail list (mostly related to
Errata locations and OPTIONAL treatment and Chris' item 229).
The easiest way to see these is to look for changes marked in red (at
least it is red on my PC).One final thought. If we vote
on this and it passes, I would like to suggest we change the version
of the last document to v1.9 and this one to
v2.0.Regards,David
FischerDrummond
GroupebXML-MS
Editor.
