- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:37:05 -0500
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFE7A52A9D.749297DF-ON85256E5F.006A16FA-85256E5F.006BC34B@ca.ibm.com>
Sanjiva,
The attribute @element formerly refered to the QName of an element (GED).
However, now it may not refer to an element. In fact, the message content
might be a simple type, or anything else, including nothing. So it is a
minor misnomer to call the attribute @element. However, most of the time
it will refer to an element. Logically, the attribute describes the
message content, which is often, but not always, an element.
Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/16/2004 10:02 PM
To
"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl"
<tomj@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
I'm confused .. I thought we're talking about special values to
assign to the operation/(input|output)/@element attribute to
indicate any content (#any) or no content (#empty).
What does this have to do with changing the name of the attribute?
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>; "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:43 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
Have you implemented it already? ;-)
Gudge
P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an attribute whose
name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)
________________________________
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
To: 'Arthur Ryman'
Cc: 'WS Description List'
Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".
-1 to changing it AGAIN.
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
To: Tom Jordahl
Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
Correction to my note:
s/elementReference/element/
Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore.
Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/16/2004 09:30 AM
To
"'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description List'"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc
Subject
RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
Jonathan,
You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so it
would NOT appear in the syntax"
Right?
--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
To: WS Description List
Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the
syntax. I like messageBody better too. Or I suppose we could just get
rid of the reference altogether, right?
<xs:attribute name="element" >
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration
value="#any" />
<xs:enumeration
value="#empty" />
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:union>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
________________________________
From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
Sanjiva,
The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors.
Here's a corrected version:
<xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" />
<xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
<xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base="xs:token">
<xs:enumeration
value="#any" />
<xs:enumeration
value="#empty" />
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:union>
</xs:simpleType>
However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference,
since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where
there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or @bodyContent
instead?
Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/11/2004 10:50 PM
To
"Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
<jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
judgements about the goodness of using unions.
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>
> I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
> I hope it will be accepted.
>
> Jacek
>
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the
FTF agenda.
> > Sorry my bad. Here's a simple proposal for addressing these
issues,
> > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
> >
> > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with
*anything*
> > in the message? [.1]
> >
> > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
> >
> > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a
QName of a
> > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained
content. Special
> > values of the element attribute could indicate these
conditions.
> >
> > Status quo:
> > <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName"
use="optional" />
> >
> > Proposal:
> > <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
use="optional" />
> >
> > <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
> > <xs:union>
> > <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
> > <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
> > <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
> > <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
> > </xs:restriction>
> > </xs:simpleType>
> > </xs:union>
> > </xs:simpleType>
> >
> > (I hope I have got that syntax right. Should be enough to
spark
> > discussion anyway...)
> >
> > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
> > [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
> >
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 14:39:34 UTC