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

Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 16:00:08 +0200
Message-ID: <3CD7DDE8.A073A469@crf.canon.fr>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: Mike Deem <mikedeem@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I don't have any strong opinion either way, but I would think that as long as
we provide a mapping from WSDL 1.1, we stay within the limits of our charter.

Jean-Jacques.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> I agree there are significant advantages to using XSD instead of
> a message syntax. This whole thread started because of a question
> on whether the message syntax should grow .. which is the case
> that you covered in the more realistic medical record example.
>
> In order to make the XSD approach work I believe we will have to
> define conventions for the complexType of the message. That is,
> we shouldn't leave open the option of whether to use an attribute
> or element to describe a logical part of the message. Do you agree?
>
> In the grand scheme of things, I don't want to spend any more
> cycles arguing about this. However, I cannot accept changing this
> for WSDL 1.2 as this is a breaking change. Do you agree this is a
> WSDL 2.0 level function? (Does anyone else disagree?)
>
> Bye,
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:42 PM
> Subject: RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?
>
> > 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 Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:00:53 GMT

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