Which of the following statements does not make sense? Select the correct answer.

Question

Options

• AI built 3 SOAP-based Web services, each of which has its own published WSDL definition. 2 of
• BI built 3 XML schemas, two of which are being shared by the same WSDL definition.
• CI built 3 WSDL definitions and 3 XML schemas. Each WSDL definition is associated with its own
• DAll of the above statements make sense.

• A
  11% (4)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  83% (30)

Explanation

D is correct because all three statements describe valid, real-world scenarios involving SOAP web services, WSDL definitions, and XML schemas - none of them contain a technical contradiction or impossibility.

Why A, B, and C are valid (and thus wrong answers to "which doesn't make sense"):

• A is sensible: Multiple SOAP services each having their own WSDL is standard practice, since WSDL is the published contract for a web service.
• B is sensible: A single WSDL can import or reference multiple XML schemas, so two schemas being shared by one WSDL is perfectly legal.
• C is sensible: Having a 1-to-1 relationship between WSDL definitions and XML schemas is a common, clean design approach.

The key insight is that WSDL and XML schemas have a flexible many-to-many relationship - one WSDL can use many schemas, and one schema can be reused across many WSDLs.

Memory tip: Think of WSDL as a contract and XML Schema as a data dictionary. Just like a contract can reference multiple dictionaries, and a dictionary can be used in multiple contracts, any combination described in A–C is architecturally valid. When a question asks "which doesn't make sense" and all options are sound, the "all make sense" choice is the trap-avoiding correct answer.

No community discussion yet for this question.