W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:29:15 -0800
Message-ID: <3E5E4AEB.4040404@oracle.com>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org


Martin Gudgin wrote:

>Umit,
>
>I have struggled greatly with your assertion that whatever replaces
>message must be able to map into the part concept
>
>More comments inline.
>
>Gudge
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] 
>>Sent: 04 February 2003 00:08
>>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>Subject: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit
>>
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>As promised, I am sending couple of xsd files as a basis for 
>>discussion 
>>as my action item
>>from F2F [1]. See also the thread on removing message 
>>starting from [2]. 
>>Our position can be found in [3].
>>
>>What I want to explore are the issues that would face us if 
>>we replaced 
>>message/part constructs by a single schema  and then shifted the 
>>responsibility of defining parts in the abstract to defining mapping 
>>relationship(s) in concrete bindings instead. 
>>
>
>I don't understand this. My thought was that we would define schema
>types/element, schema provides for cardinality/disjunction, which in
>turn provides for variations on the wire. 
>
Gudge,

Before starting to debate the rest, lets agree on the common assumptions 
first.

In the January f2f, the idea explored was that when a single schema 
replaces the message construct, the concept of parts was going to be 
moved from the abstract to the concrete binding. For some of us, having 
*multiple* parts is necessary in the binding. So the exercise was to 
come up with schema examples and explore how they will exhibit 
themselves in the binding!

Given this assumption, the idea is to explore how the parts are going to 
reappear in the binding as they would be dissappearing from the 
abstract. So a "mapping" is necessary.

My task was to present complex schema examples. You guys were going to 
show the mapping in the binding. Am I missing something? 

... rest deleted ...

>
--umit

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp					
Consulting Member of Technical Staff            400 Oracle Parkway
Oracle
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          Redwood Shores,
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com                CA 94065, USA
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 12:31:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT