RE: schema in [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b, etc.

I have been talking to some implementors and they are concerned about 
making this change this late in the process.  I think Doug is right.  
Let's leave xsi:schemaLocation in and we can discuss removing it for the next 
version.

 

David.

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 12:18 
  PM
To: Doug Bunting; 
  
Subject: RE: schema in [ebxml-msg] 
  v2.0 rev b, etc.

  
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  problem I see in section 2.3.2 is that the information is obsolete and 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.