Based on last weeks's discussion, the proposal is now to add the following
annotation (changes in bold)

/* * Copyright(C) OASIS(R) 2005,2010. All Rights Reserved. * OASIS trademark, IPR and other policies apply. */ package org.oasisopen.sdo.annotations;

import java.lang.annotation.ElementType; import java.lang.annotation.Retention; import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy; import java.lang.annotation.Target;

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(ElementType.PACKAGE) public @interface SdoSchemaOptions { public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED}; XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; }

Here is the proposed wording:

1. @SdoSchemaOptions If the @SdoSchemaOptions annotation is present as part of a package information
file, then whenever the classes in this package are passed to any of the
XSDHelper.generate methods, a Java implementation of SDO MUST include the
corresponding attributes on the <schema> element of the generated XSD at least
wherever the form default is "qualified". [JAV03070501] If the
@SdoSchemaOptions annotation is not present , the SDO implementation's MAY
include elementFormDefault="unqualified" attribute and
attributeFormDefault="unqualified" attributes or MAY omit these attributes,.
[JAV03070503]

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(ElementType.PACKAGE) public @interface SdoSchemaOptions { public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED}; XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; }

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I would like to add the following to the SDO Core Spec. I'm not so sure about
the last line... do we want to use this property to specify the form, or only
the URI? If we go with the proposal here, we should also change the Java spec
(section 3.6.6).

1. The table in section 8.2 should contain a new line: xmlPropertyUri

URI String

Property

1. Add the following text to the end of section 8.2 (the text is more or less
the same as for the java annotation

The xmlPropertyURI controls the namespace of the element or attribute under
which the property value will be serialized. In this way, it is possible to
specify that, in XML, namespace of the property differs from the namespace of
the type (as would occur if the property were defined through an xs:ref
element). By setting this property to be the same as the Type's URI, the user
can effect that the XML form of the attribute or element is "qualified". If the
XML URI is left unspecified or set to an empty string, the property MUST be
rendered unqualified. [COR....] When generating schema containing types where
there is a consistent usage of xmlPropertyUri, such that all attributes or all
elements are rendered qualified, implementations MUST set the attribute- and
element- FormDefaults in the <schema> tag. [COR...]

Von: Barack, Ron [mailto:ron....@sap.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Juni 2010 14:16 An: sd...@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: [sdo] ISSUE 41: Discussion and Proposals

Hi Everyone,

In last week's discussion I promised to review the 2.1.1 spec, to see if we
could, in good conscience, define the standard behavior when generating schemas
to be to generate a schema with elementFormDefault="qualified", or whether this
would constitute a breaking change.

The good news is, I believe we are 100% free when defining the behavior when
generating meta-information from Java interfaces. The 2.1.1 spec deals only
with the generation of static SDOs from an existing XSD, not with the use of
static SDOs as sources of information.

On the other hand, the it is clearly implied that elementFormDefault="qualified"
is not the default behavior when the metadata comes through the API. The
clearest argument here is two tables at the beginning of chapter 10. It is also
the case that none of the examples of generated XML use qualified element names
other then when referring to root elements. Furthermore, although chapter 9
defines the mapping *from* XSD *to* SDO, none of the mapping tables references
elementFormDefault. To me, this more or less ties our hands when types are
defined through the API.

This leaves us with 2 things that we can add: the xmlUri openContentProperty
that can be used when defining properties through the API, and the Java
annotation:

I hope that the Java annotation will not be very controversial:

/* * Copyright(C) OASIS(R) 2005,2010. All Rights Reserved. * OASIS trademark, IPR and other policies apply. */ package org.oasisopen.sdo.annotations;

import java.lang.annotation.ElementType; import java.lang.annotation.Retention; import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy; import java.lang.annotation.Target;

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(ElementType.PACKAGE) public @interface SdoSchemaOptions { public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED}; XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.QUALIFIED; XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; }

Here is the proposed wording:

1. @SdoSchemaOptions If the @SdoSchemaOptions annotation is present as part of a package information
file, then whenever the classes in this package are passed to any of the
XSDHelper.generate methods, a Java implementation of SDO MUST include the
corresponding attributes on the <schema> element of the generated XSD at least
wherever the form default is "qualified". [JAV03070501] If the
@SdoSchemaOptions annotation is not present , the SDO implementation's default
behavior MUST be for the <schema> to include an elementFormDefault="qualified"
attribute and MAY include an attributeFormDefault="unqualified" attribute.
[JAV03070503]

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(ElementType.PACKAGE) public @interface SdoSchemaOptions { public enum XsdForm {QUALIFIED, UNQUALIFIED}; XsdForm elementFormDefault() default XsdForm.QUALIFIED; XsdForm attributeFormDefault() default XsdForm.UNQUALIFIED; }

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I would like to add the following to the SDO Core Spec. I'm not so sure about
the last line... do we want to use this property to specify the form, or only
the URI? If we go with the proposal here, we should also change the Java spec
(section 3.6.6).

1. The table in section 8.2 should contain a new line: xmlPropertyUri

URI String

Property

1. Add the following text to the end of section 8.2 (the text is more or less
the same as for the java annotation

The xmlPropertyURI controls the namespace of the element or attribute under
which the property value will be serialized. In this way, it is possible to
specify that, in XML, namespace of the property differs from the namespace of
the type (as would occur if the property were defined through an xs:ref
element). If the XML URI is left unspecified or set to an empty string, the
property MUST be rendered unqualified. [COR....].