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

RE: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:39:55 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30D38@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com] 
> Sent: 27 February 2003 17:29
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action 2003-01-21 for Umit


> 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. 

By which you mean what? Surely a binding just describes concretely what
a message looks like on the wire... Are you just asking for the ability
to say 'this element goes in the body, that element goes in a header'?
Or 'this element goes in the body, that element goes as an attachment'?
Or are you asking for more than that?

> So the exercise was to come up with schema 
> examples and explore how they will exhibit themselves in the binding!

That much I understood, but the discussion of 'parts' confused me.

> 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.

So, hopefully, by 'mapping' you mean specifying which
elements/attributes go where...

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

Obviously I was... 

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 13:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:41 UTC