W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2005

RE: LC124

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:30:54 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF10F0FEE4@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
SOAP encoding was created because Schema didn't exist and the original
goal was to do "object access" so types including graphs were needed.  I
don't understand the point..

 

Can you say what is insufficient about the latest round of definitions
for "ignoreUnknowns"?  They haven't pointed to conference papers for
their definitions.

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:33 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: LC124

 


I've been discussing LC124 with my colleagues and I thought I'd post an
update in case we discuss this tomorrow. 

1. In general, we agree the versioning is important, and we'd like the
problem addressed. 
2. We are concerned that this is really an XML Schema problem and that
WSDL is probably not the right place to address it. There is work going
on now in the Schema WG. There are several solutions being proposed and
it would be premature for WSDL to adopt the validate-twice solution
(although that is a strong contender). As a cautionary tale, the
creative use of Schema with SOAP Encoding was cited. The schema didn't
really describe the message. We don't want a repeat in WSDL 2.0. We are
concerned about locking in a solution that may not agree with the
direction of Schema. 
3. The boolean nature of ignoreUnknowns is not very useful. In many
scenarios, it is important to know if the unknown content is preserved
(e.g. passed on) or even processed. 
4. There is no normative document that describes the proposed processing
algorithm. Who will write that? (pointing to conference papers is not
adequate). The WSDL spec should only cite other specs for Core features.


I need more time to establish a company position since this is vacation
season. I'll try to move this issue forward though. 


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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 13:31:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT