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

RE: comments on Appendix E

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:01:57 +0200
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1064955168.4836.26.camel@localhost>

Jeffrey, others, please see inside.

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 06:33, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:
> > If we only accept XML element declarations (body and headers), it will
> > require that we devise a (possibly simple and limited) mapping to
> > non-XML stuff for use with HTTP and MIME (for exampe for URL
> parameters
> > and HTML form encoding). 
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> > If we're happy with this, we will also require
> > that all type systems that might be used in WSDL declare XML elements
> > and we need to say so in the spec. 
> 
> Do we need to preclude someone from introducing a new type system and a
> new binding as a pair? Do we need to restrict bindings to operating only
> over Infoset descriptions of messages?

If we want to allow someone to introduce a new type system and thus
extend the notion of a message, we have to say that a message is
extendable. That is what I mean by "accepting XML element declarations
and other stuff as well (i.e. there being other kinds of stuff in a
message than just header and body XML element information items)" below.

If we go this path, I will be pleased. 8-)

> > It may be awkward if we have a nice non-XML data
> > model and a binding that uses it and we need to go through an XML
> > conversion step in order to describe this in WSDL.
> 
> It may be awkward if someone has a non-XML model but has to map to the
> Infoset to use WSDL? To use pre-defined bindings? 

This would not be awkward, no. But having to go through the mapping step
twice (there and back) would be awkward.

> > If we accept XML element declarations and other stuff as well (i.e.
> > there are other kinds of stuff in a message than just header and body
> > XML element information items), we'll need an example for that in
> > Appendix E.
> 
> Are you volunteering? :-)

Well, why not? I may draft my SOAP Data Model Schema Language using
message extensibility and defining graph nodes and edges as opposed to
defining XML Elements. The mapping step to XML would be SOAP Encoding.
I'd like to first see a sense from the group that this direction is
worth pursuing, though.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 04:04:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT