W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > July 2005

Action item for LC101

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:35:52 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D641651BBFD6@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I took an action item to describe the extensibility model for abstract
properties of an endpoint reference to resolve LC101[1]. This was to
resolve the discrepancy between the Infoset representation of EPRs where
the extensibility is explicitly addressed (namely Section 2.2) and the
information model of EPRs (Section 2.1) in the Core.  

Abstract models are very similar to component models. For example, in
WSDL 2.0 we have a separate component model which exists indepent of the
infoset of the WSDLs that are in the component model. So does XML
Schema. In building a component model, one would need the "abstraction"
to talk about inclusion or exclusion of documents and their contribution
to the model, or talk about component equivalence (as in WSDL). So when
I see an abstract/information model, I ask the question whether the
model actually provides a utility which is independent of infoset as it
does in WSDL. 

With the representation of EPRs, an abstract information model or a
component model independent of XML Infoset does not seem to exhibit the
same properties as the Infoset representation adequately covers the
Information model and explains the problem at hand, extensibility. In
this case, I can think of neither a need for an inclusion mechanism to
the abstract model from other documents nor a component equivalence
mechanism within the model since we don't include multiple EPRs to the
same model via inclusion. 

I realized that Anish has actually sent a proposal for LC104 yesterday
[2]. After reading Jonathan's posting [3], I am convinced that my action
item has already been delivered. 

We don't need further clarification and syncing up information model of
EPRs and the Infoset terminology, namely Sections 2.1 and Sections 2.2.
Anish has already delivered my action item :-) I propose that we adopt
the way he has combined these two sections, satisfy LC101 and claim



[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc101
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 22:35:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:10 UTC