Hello, I have a couple questions regarding how XSD is imported into an OWL model using the XSD importer, especially in regards to handling imported schema's.
In my case, I have two schemas, one defined as: <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xmlns="http://www.boeing.com/sem/acms/ACMS_Report_Specification"; targetNamespace="http://www.boeing.com/sem/acms/ACMS_Report_Specification"; version="1.1"> And another that imports the above schema as follows: xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xmlns:ohma="http://www.boeing.com/sem/ohma/opc"; xmlns:acms="http://www.boeing.com/sem/acms/ACMS_Report_Specification"; targetNamespace="http://www.boeing.com/sem/ohma/opc"; version="0.1"> <xsd:import namespace="http://www.boeing.com/sem/acms/ACMS_Report_Specification"; schemaLocation="acms_1-x.xsd"/> What happens when I use the XSD importer is that it does pick up the imported schema, but instead of simply importing its ontology into the "importing" ontology, it creates copies of all the classes and properties found in the "imported" schema, and defines them as in the namespace of the importing schema. e.g. in the imported schema there is this complexType definition: <xsd:complexType name="report-text-type" mixed="true"> <xsd:attribute name="column" type="xsd:integer" use="optional"/> <xsd:attribute name="row" type="xsd:integer" use="optional"/> <xsd:attribute name="sequence-number" type="xsd:integer" use="optional"/> </xsd:complexType> This gets mapped into an ACMS_Report_Specification:Report-text-type class in the resulting ontology for the imported, lower level schema, which is all well and good. However, when I create the ontology for the importing, upper-level schema, it too gets its own Report-text-type class defined in it as opc:Report-text-type. Note that there is no construct called report-text-type defined anywhere in the importing schema, so it must be picking it up from the imported schema, which defines a different namespace. Why not simply import the lower level ontology into the upper level ontology and not recreate all the constructs for both in the upper level ontology namespace? Jeff -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include Enterprise Vocabulary Network (EVN), TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Insight, SPARQLMotion, SPARQL Web Pages and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
