W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: WSDL WG request for adding multiple version extensibility into Schema 1.1

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:54:30 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040213205430.X1330@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:06:01PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> <name>
> 	<first>Dave</first>
> 	<last>Orchard</last>
> </name>
> 
> <name>
> 	<first>Dave</first>
> 	<last>Orchard</last>
> 	<middle>Bryce</middle>
> </name>
> 
> <name>
> 	<first>Dave</first>
> 	<last>Orchard</last>
> 	<middle>Bryce</middle>
> 	<suffix>II</suffix>
> </name>
> We want these 3 of these documents to be valid against the 3 schemas. It
> seems that the simplest change would be to have a "low priority" wildcard as
> mentioned in previous discussions. The schemas using this would be something
> like:

Can I ask why you wouldn't just use RDF/XML in that case?  It gives you
exactly the kind of extensibility you seem to require.

I understand that there's pushback against RDF/XML in WS circles, but
really, solving this problem is *exactly* what RDF was designed for.

If you want to give me a detailed example and the
versioning/extensibility requirements, I'd be happy to do the
conversion to RDF/XML.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 20:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC