Yeah,
I was a bit worried about that as well. I even re-read the descriptions of theses types in the docs to be sure. But I certainly do have an example. Here’s an excerpt from my schema(s) that defines an element named “Operation” and it’s children.
<xs:element name=“Operation”>
xs:complexType
xs:choice
<xs:element ref=“Parameters”/>
<xs:any namespace=“##other” processContents=“strict”/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name=“Parameters”>
xs:complexType
xs:sequence
<xs:element ref=“Parameter” maxOccurs=“unbounded”/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name=“Parameter”>
xs:complexType
xs:sequence
<xs:element ref=“Value” maxOccurs=“unbounded”/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name=“Value”>
xs:complexType
<xs:attribute name=“Position” type=“xs:positiveInteger” use=“optional”/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
Now I would think that the “Operation” element would be a Record, and IS agrees. I would also think however, that “Parameters” would be a RecordList, since it contains multiple “Parameter” records (elements). In this case IS makes Parameters a Record.
Also note that the “Value” element (by default) merely contains a string. IS makes this a RecordList. Maybe I should have explicitly declared xs:simpleContent here, but the result is the same.
So, is it me? 
#webMethods#Flow-and-Java-services#Integration-Server-and-ESB