Would this work? I'm not sure if "recursive" inclusion would not include D twice (because it comes in via both A AND B). However, the same modularization principle would work if you defined:
D has the common stuff
E has the rest of the stuff which A needs
F has the rest of the stuff which B needs
A includes D & E
B includes D & F
C includes D,E & F
John
-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Cleary [mailto:davec@progress.com]
Sent: 21 August 2001 21:08
To: Cheryl_Gielau@cargill.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: Including multiple schemas - duplicate name errors
> I am using seperate schemas since one (A)
> represents a particular kind of operational
> event (the weight of product)and the other (B)
> represents a different kind of operational
> event (the quality of product).
> At points in the workflow, the messages are
> sent seperately. However, they do have
> some element names that are in common
> like TransportationMode, ServiceLocation
> and others but that are defined globally
> in each of the A and B schemas.
>
> Later in the workflow Schema C packages schemas
> A and B together, along with some additional
> instructions. In schema C, since A and B are
> included, I get the error that TransportationMode
> and ServiceLocation & others have been defined
> more than once.
>
> Cheryl
You should package up all common definitions in a schema D. Include schema D
in A and B. When C includes A and B, you will not get your duplicate
definition error, because there is only a single source (schema D) for those
definitions.
Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>