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 11:44:14 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <40D094FE.507@sun.com>

No, what I'm asserting is that the WG considered the issue of non-XML
data models and was satisfied with the present solution, which
accomodates them, allows the use of attributes other than @element
in the syntax but encourages mapping them to element declarations
in the model. None of the additional information I've seen warrants
reopening the discussion on the level of support we provide.

Roberto


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> If that were the case, the resolutions of those issues indicates that 
> the WG supports accommodation of non-XML data models;
> 
> 143: "Reaffirmed our desire to provide guidance on how to support 
> non-XML type systems."
> 
> issue-allow-nonxml-typesystems: "non-XML type systems are allowed via 
> extensibility attributes of  message/part elements."
> 
> In this view, the WG has already determined that WSDL shouldn't be 
> constrained to the Infoset data model, but the drafts don't reflect that 
> decision.
> 
> Is this what you're asserting?
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 
>> The issue on "non XML type systems" was literally about type systems
>> describing un-XML-/un-infoset-like data models, e.g. the Java type
>> system.
>>
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:44:24 GMT

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