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

Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:05:48 -0800
Message-ID: <405F471C.9040104@oracle.com>
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org


Arthur Ryman wrote:

>
> 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. 


Ok, it appears that we are still discussing this problem. As I stated in 
the concall last week, I am very concerned that we have extended the 
content model no longer to be an element, and now if we decide to change 
the name as well just to fit this ill defined model, I am really against 
this change.

We should not break the model. If our model that we worked on for 2 
years is an element based model, call it an element. I view that the 
element content can also include no content which is a common use case. 
For other types of content, a different attribute could be used to 
indicate #any content. Changing the name points out that the content 
model is no longer element based, but this is against the spirit of the 
specification.

If one desires  to have a different content model, (s)he is allowed to 
do so, but it should not be the content model we define. It can be 
handled via extensibility, another attribute. I personally don't want to 
create the spec so that it should immediately be profiled to enable 
interoperability since most of the cases, as you point out, the content 
will be elements.

A big -1 to name change at this point.

--umit


>
>
> 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
> > >
>
>
>
>

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 15:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT