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

Re: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:43:32 -0700
Message-Id: <4DD75458-BFB4-11D8-8A84-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>

Reopen what issue number?


On Jun 16, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:

>
> +1 from me too. There is no need to reopen this issue at this time.
>
> Mark asked:
>
> > Should RDF Schema be either disallowed from describing WSDL  
> messages,
> > or forced to unnaturally contort itself somehow to fit into  an
> > Infoset data model?
>
> The latter. And it only needs to contort itself a little, since all
> we're asking for is a global element declaration or its equivalent.
> Moreover, that declaration doesn't have to represent faithfully *all*
> the information in the RDF Schema -- it can be as shallow as one wants
> -- so the burden is minimal. The leanness of the media type spec is
> a further confirmation of this fact.
>
> Roberto
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>> ARGH! Major +1 to Tom .. don't fix what ain't broken.
>> Sanjiva.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
>> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 7:37 PM
>> Subject: RE: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4) Throughout - Change instances of "element declaration" to 
>>>> "content
>>>> declaration", the {element} property to {content}, and instances of 
>>>> the
>>>> "element" Attribute Information Item to "content".
>>>
>>> Amy wrote in response:
>>>
>>>> Hmm.  13 instances of "{element}", 27 of "element declaration".  
>>>> Harder
>> to
>>>> count instances of "element" attribute information item.  But this 
>>>> AII
>> is
>>>> associated with XML Schema, is it not?  Do we *really* need to 
>>>> change
>> it?
>>>> Again?  The element AII appears in faults and in messages.  In 
>>>> messages,
>>>
>>> I would not be in favor of resolving issue 225 by make the kind of 
>>> change
>>> that Mark is proposing.  It strikes me that this could have a major 
>>> ripple
>>> effect throughout the specification at a very bad time.
>>>
>>> It also seems that changes like these make the spec much more 
>>> obscure for
>> a
>>> use case that has not been proven to be a requirement.  Didn't we 
>>> (or the
>>> architecture working group) define a Web Service to specifically 
>>> include
>>> XML?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Jordahl
>>> Macromedia Server Development
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 12:43:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT