RE: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1

Sanjiva,

I have not undone anything that you have done. 

When did we decide that XML type systems would be treated the same as
everything else? I think we agreed to have XML Schema as a
fully-supported type system and to detail how one might use other XML
based type systems ( which Amy did ) and also to allow other type
systems to play ( by basically using similar mechanisms to those used by
'other' XML type systems ). 

At the FTF in VA we agreed that extension elements/attributes ( which
other type systems would have to be ) would annotate the existing
component model with additional properties, as necessary. There was no
suggestions that we would rid ourselves of {element declarations} or
{type definitions} as far as I remember, nor can I find anything in the
minutes. In fact, it stops QName references from working if we don't
have two separate properties. I really think that having a types
component with a single bag of stuff is the wrong approach. I suggest
that other type systems add properties to the definitions component just
like {element declarations} and {type defintions} and defined how
referencing works between the attributes they specify for parts and
these properties ( this is, AFAICT what Amy has done for RelaxNG and
DTDs )

Either way we can't publish today as the types sections are now
incomplete.

Gudge


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 17 January 2003 19:57
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau; 
> roberto.chinnici@sun.com; Jeffrey Schlimmer; Amelia A. Lewis
> Subject: Re: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> Importance: Low
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Gudge,
> 
> I disagree - the way you had written the component model 
> there were fundamental properties called element and type 
> declarations. While those make sense for XML Schema, they 
> make no sense at all for non-XML type systems. What we agreed 
> to was that WSDL would cleanly support multiple type systems, 
> including non-XML ones. The approach you're suggesting treats 
> XML centric type systems in a first-clas maner and everything 
> else in a different way. That's not acceptable.
> 
> The re-write I started was to make it clear that any type 
> system has the same place in the model. Have you un-done what 
> I started working on?
> 
> (My CVS access is still busted and I'm currently in Heathrow; 
> so poor net
> access.)
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> on 01/17/2003 10:35:39 AM
> 
> To:    "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, 
> "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
>        <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, Sanjiva
>        Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Jeffrey Schlimmer"
>        <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> cc:    "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> Subject:    Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> 
> 
> 
> I've been looking at the initial start of the types re-write. 
> I think that types should remain in a separate section. I'm 
> not convinced that there is a types component at the abstract 
> level. I think we just stick with {element declarations} and 
> {type definitions} properties in the definitions component. 
> We agreed in VA that additional type systems would add their 
> own properties to existing components in the abstract model. 
> I believe that the other XML based type systems should 
> populate these properties. We then define how the QName 
> reference stuff works just once.
> 
> Other type systems that are not XML based would need to 
> specify what properties they add to the definitions 
> components. I've added text saying that the component model 
> can be added to by extensbility elements and/or attributes.
> 
>  Gudge
> 
>