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
