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 18:13:17 -0800
Message-ID: <405F9D3D.8030903@oracle.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.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


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>I too would like to drop the element=#any case, but when I suggested
>this during the last telecon it didn't get much traction.
>
>
>In any case, we've decided on this one - Arthur was replying to an
>old thread. Unless there's some new information I'm not in favor
>of re-opening it; Umit's concerns were expressed during the call
>too. (I understand and support her concerns but the alternates
>didn't seem very good .. the best IMO would be to not support #any.)
>
It seems that at least Tom and Roberto did not understand that the cases 
(as stated 3 and 4) were lumped together during the discussion. IMO, 
this is indeed new information. As Roberto also points out, this is a 
problem indeed for some bindings. We can save a lot of hassle instead of 
dealing with minority opinions, etc. if we were to address this right now.

Further, your suggestion did not get traction, because we were allowed 
to only vote on Jonathan's proposal. There was no voting on your 
suggestion (which I supported) as an alternate proposal during the call ;-)

Thanks.

--umit

>
>Sanjiva.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.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>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:36 AM
>Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>
>
>  
>
>>I find the current syntax nice and readble in three of the four cases:
>>
>>   1)  element="myns:Foo"
>>   2)  element="#none"
>>   3)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "any element")
>>
>>It's the fourth case, i.e.
>>   4)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "anything, any kind of content")
>>that is problematic.
>>
>>I'm actually having second thoughts on conflating (3) and (4).
>>
>>I think that Umit has a point when she says that by adopting (4) we've
>>moved away from an element-based content model representation.
>>
>>Moreover, given that some bindings might have restrictions on the
>>allowable payloads for a message, it seems important to distinguish
>>between (3) and (4). Otherwise an application written to the abstract
>>layer of WSDL will feel authorized, upon encountering a message
>>definition which specified element="#any", to pass arbitrary content
>>around, including content of a kind that will be systematically rejected
>>by the binding in use. Then we'd fall back again in the trap of writing
>>applications to a specific binding rather than to the abstract interface.
>>
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>>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 21:14:14 GMT

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