W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

RE: D-AC010.1 discussion points

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:53:14 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C9ACE3E@mail.contivo.com>
To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I think it is dangerous to leave the form of syntactic schema
underspecified.
At a minimum, it should be a "syntatic schema defined in a W3C
Recommendation".

Dave H

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:37 AM
To: wsawg public
Subject: D-AC010.1 discussion points


D-AC010.1
"Each new architectural area is representable in a syntactic schema
language like XML Schema."

MSFT: Change "is representable in a syntactic schema language like XML
Schema"
to "has its representation normatively specified in XML Schema".

CVX: I'd rather have just the more general D-AC010 and leave specifics like
this unspecified.  If 
representing architectural  areas using schema is a good way to implement
D-AC010, fine.

W3C: What if the architectural area has an abstract model, and a logical
way to do this is to model data with an RDF Schema?

I would propose the following:

   Each new architectural area is representable in a schema language.

PF: If an "architectural area" is something like "security", "reliability",
etc.. then I don't say 
how they can be represented in XML.
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 11:57:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT