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

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

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:48:42 -0700
Message-ID: <40D0B22A.3060508@oracle.com>
To: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org



Roberto Chinnici wrote:

>
> 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 


+1

--umit

>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 16:58:23 GMT

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