Re: Proposal for Issue 6700

Comments inline . . .

On 9/1/2009 10:07 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> My overarching point / observation is that we are washing our hands of 
> doing the actual XML Infoset conversion work and asking the reader to 
> do the work if she/he cares about it. I doubt if anyone would go to 
> the length of doing the conversion and even so such a conversion is 
> non-normative and cannot be considered a part of the specification.
>
You are correct. That is the point of this approach. We want a way to 
allow serializations other than XML 1.0 to be considered as conforming 
without making the 99% of the readers who don't care about such 
serializations wade through Infoset descriptions of each element and 
attribute. I'm not sure what you mean by "such a conversion is 
non-normative". If there is a one-to-one mapping between XML and 
Infoset, which terminology we use is, in the abstract, somewhat 
arbitrary. We are choosing to use XML terminology because we expect that 
the majority of our readers will be more comfortable with this terminology.
>
> Having said that, I believe that the XML Infoset specification defines 
> how to map from XML to the Infoset representation. Are we inventing 
> anything new in the mapping rules that is not already specified in the 
> XML Infoset specifications? Why can't the WS-RA specifications simply 
> refer to the XML Infoset specification for the mapping rules?
>
You make a good point. Let's discuss on the call today . . .
>
>  
>
> Thanks.
>
>  
>
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2009 11:59 AM
> *To:* Ram Jeyaraman
> *Cc:* Li, Li (Li); public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
> ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> *Subject:* Re: Proposal for Issue 6700
>
>  
>
> I think the purpose of doing it this way is twofold:
>
> 1.) It saves the effort of having to go through the description of 
> every element and attribute and change that description to Infoset 
> terminology.
>
> 2.) It reduces the potential for confusion inherent in the use of 
> Infoset terminology. Like it or not, 99% of developers use XML 1.0 
> exclusively and tend to think in XML 1.0 terms. Requiring them to map 
> between Infoset terminology and XML 1.0 terminology makes the spec 
> harder to read.
>
> I think you are confusing "defined in" with "described by". By 
> asserting that the specifications are "defined in" Infoset we are 
> declaring that the normative definition of the elements and attributes 
> in the spec are based on a abstract document structure. This allows 
> for implementations that may use serializations other than XML 1.0. 
> The fact that these elements and attributes are "described in" XML 1.0 
> terms is merely a convenient, notional shorthand that makes it easier 
> for 99% of the readers to understand. As long as the mapping from XML 
> 1.0 to Infoset it complete, there shouldn't be any problems.
>
> Which brings me to my next point, how is the mapping 'partial'?
>
> - gp
>
> On 8/27/2009 5:42 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> I like to question the purpose of this exercise (issue).
>  
>   
>
>     This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset) and not in terms of XML 1.0, even though the specification uses XML 1.0
>
>         
>
> terminology.
>  
> The first part says that the specification is defined in Infoset notation, but the later part says that the specification is uses XML 1.0 terminology. Is it true that the specification is defined in terms of Infoset?
>  
> Further, the mapping provided in the second paragraph of the proposal is a partial mapping and not a complete one.
>  
> What is the point of leaving the exercise of mapping the XML document to Infoset as an exercise to the reader. What do we gain by saying this?
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Li, Li (Li)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:47 AM
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> Subject: Proposal for Issue 6700
>  
>  
> This proposal is based on the consensus between Ashok, Wu and Gil. To
> complete the Infoset description for WS-Eventing, we propose to just add
> the following text at the end of "Section 3.1 Notational Conventions" of
> WS-Eventing, instead of following the approach taken by 6424:
>  
> ---
> This specification is defined in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset)
> and not in terms of XML 1.0, even though the specification uses XML 1.0
> terminology. A mapping from XML to Infoset is straightforward as
> described below, and it is recommended that this should be used for any
> non-XML serializations.
>  
> XML documents map to Infoset Document Information Items.  XML Elements
> map to Infoset Element Information Items (EIIs) and attributes map to
> Infoset Attribute Information Items (AIIs).  The *children* property of
> an Element Information Item (EII) is a collection of EIIs corresponding
> to its Element Children.  The *attributes* property of an EII is a
> collection of AIIs corresponding to its attributes.
>  
> See the Infoset specification [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/] for
> more details.
> ---
>  
> We hope this proposal can be applied to related issues 6701-6704 as
> well, by adding the above text to the "Notational Conventions" section
> of each corresponding spec.
>  
> Li Li
>  
>  
>  
>  
>