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

Re: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:57:45 -0400
Message-ID: <3D89D7D9.60E094C0@ca.ibm.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

Jacek,

1. We disagree about XML Schema. You claim it is only good for tree-like data. I claim it is also good for graphs via ID,
IDREF, <key>, and <keyref>. Although you may regard that as a kludge, wouldn't you agree that SOAP encoding is a bigger
kludge?

2. I am not recommending that we completely drop support for SOAP Encoding. I am recommending that we require it to be
described by an accurate schema, which I believe is possible although ugly in some cases. I am suggesting we allow the
combination encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" and use="literal". I am also suggesting we allow
encodingStyle="http://whatever-ws-i-org-calls-their-graph-encoding" and use="literal". In both cases the encoding style is
just a hint for tools that generate a programming language data type from the schema. A tool shouldn't blindly apply code
generation to the schema (since it could be ugly). The tool should take into account the encoding style used to generate
the schema in order to generate a natural looking data type.

-- Arthur

>
> From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
> To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
> Cc: WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Date: 19 Sep 2002 14:07:19 +0200
> Message-Id: <1032437239.12803.69.camel@krava>
> Subject: Re: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute
>
>  Arthur,
>  just two points:
>
>  1. By constraining oneself to XML Schema as the abstract type system,
> one constrains oneself to the tree data model inherent in XML Schema,
> other data models being out of reach (describing other data models in
> XML Schema is at best a kludge). For example - what if I want to
> transfer some specific RDF data in a service? How do I describe the
> service using only XML Schema?
>  It is true that the real representation need not be XML, but this is an
> orthogonal topic.
>
>  2. WS-I doesn't seem to support SOAP Encoding in their activities, and
> if I understand you correctly, they are in fact creating their own graph
> encoding. It is understandable for them, but I don't think it is
> possible for WSDL 1.2 not to support SOAP Encoding properly, since SOAP
> Encoding is part of SOAP 1.2 - the product of a peer W3C Working Group -
> and the WS-Desc WG has sent no comments against SOAP Encoding in the
> Last Call phase.
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 09:58:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT