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

RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Mike Deem <mikedeem@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:42:20 -0700
Message-ID: <A84507FC48EA7B4B86323F4E82483F7E024BA747@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I agree that the "pseudo-facet" syntax proposed in the WSDL extension
for DIME is a bit verbose. However, I believe the advantages to be
gained by using schema out weight working with the complex syntax. (I
also think we can address most of the syntax issues in future versions
of schema.)

Using schema to describe content has the advantage that those
descriptions can be shared across all levels of an application. For
example, an XML store and the messaging layer would share the same
schema for a "medical-record". I could simply pull a "medical-record"
instance from the store and pass it to the messaging layer. 

Also, it isn't clear how a message/part representation deals with more
complex content. For example, a more realistic version of the
media-record schema would probably include multiple sets of images:

	<xs:complexType name="medical-record">
	  <xs:sequence>
	    <xs:element name="person-name" type="xs:string"/>
	    <xs:element name="xray-set" maxOccurs="unbounded">
	      <xs:complexType>
              <xs:sequence>
	          <xs:element name="description" type="xs:string"/>
	          <xs:element name="left-view" type="tns:gif"/>
	          <xs:element name="right-view" type="xs:gif"/>
              </xs:sequence>
	      </xs:complexType>
	    </xs:element>
	  </xs:sequence>
	</xs:complexType>	

How would this be represented using message/part?

  == Mike ==

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:44 AM
> To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?
> 
> Thanks Mike for showing exactly what non-XSD types being described in
> XSD would look like. So it comes down to:
> 
> > >    <xs:complexType name="medical-record">
> > >     <xs:sequence>
> > >      <xs:element name="person-name" type="xs:string"/>
> > >      <xs:element name="head-xray" type="tns:gif"/>
> > >     </xs:sequence>
> > >    </xs:complexType>
> > >
> > >    <xs:simpleType name="gif">
> > >     <xs:restriction base="xs:base64Binary">
> > >      <xs:annotation>
> > >       <xs:appinfo>
> > >        <content:mediaType value="image/gif"/>
> > >       </xs:appinfo>
> > >      </xs:annotation>
> > >     </xs:restriction>
> > >    </xs:simpleType>
> 
> vs.:
> 
> > >     <message name="medical-record">
> > >         <part name="person-name" type="xsd:string"/>
> > >         <part name="head-xray" mimeType="image/gif"/>
> > >     </message>
> 
> I still maintain that the latter is a *much* more natural
> way to express the statement that message consists of two
> items, the patient's name and his xray.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 12:42:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT