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 10:40:26 -0700
Message-Id: <4097911A-BFBC-11D8-8A84-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>

These issues seem to be about non-XML Schema type systems, not  
non-Infoset data models (the language used in them is not precise).


On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:

>
> 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
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 13:40:31 GMT

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