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 16:06:29 +0200
Message-ID: <3CD7DF65.697A274C@crf.canon.fr>
To: Mike Deem <mikedeem@microsoft.com>
CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Another example would be the Purchase Order at [1]. The WSDL definition
would be:

    <message name="purchase-order">
        <part name="purchaseOrder" type="tns:PurchaseOrderType"/>
    </message>

but this is an oversimplification. In reality, the one liner above expands
into the 66 lines schema at [2]. I think you are questioning why we would
want to expose only the top of the iceberg (i.e. the top-level EIIs) via
the wsdl:part element. On that example, it might be more appropriate to
expose instead the 2nd level EIIs.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#PO
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#POSchema


Mike Deem wrote:

> 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 10:07:25 GMT

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