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

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

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:31:32 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <40D083F4.3060402@sun.com>

Two of them actually: 143 [1] and "issue allow nonxml typesystems" [2].

Roberto

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x143

[2] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#xissue%20allow%20nonxml%20typesystems


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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 13:31:34 GMT

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