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

Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:22:49 -0500
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFC2FA051.87D5C661-ON85256E5F.0074EBBC-85256E5F.0075712D@ca.ibm.com>
Umit,

I also like the simple element content model and was not in favour of 
allowing anything. However, since the group decided to allow that 
use-case, then at least the name should reflect the reality of the spec. 
Keeping the current name as element  won't prevent the spec from being 
profiled. The name change is purely editoral and neither improves nor 
worsens interoperability.

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/



Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/22/2004 03:05 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
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
Subject
Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150








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 17:22:00 GMT

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