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

RE: LC124

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:55:17 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF11179E63@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Unknown content is defined in the latest proposal that I made.  

 

I should be clear that using the value of "notKnown" is simply one
technique that can be used, but there could easily be others.  It does
have the advantage that a full conformant Schema processor will provide
that value in the PSVI.  I think Sandy Gao has answered the question
about the utility of notKnown, and this is what Henry's demonstration
also showed.

 

I don't know what your last sentence means when you say "what
restrictions are being placed on the new version".  This doesn't seem
like a restriction to me.  Could you give me a sample that you are
concerned about?

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

  _____  

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:26 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: LC124

 


David, 

The proposed text assumes a definition of unknown content. I assume that
is defined in one of Henry's papers or presentations. 

Is there a normative definition of unknown content? I don't see it in
the XML Schema 1.0 spec. [1] The word "unknown" doesn't even appear
there. The value "notKnown" does appear as a possible value of the
[validity] PSVI, but my reading of the spec is that it means the item
wasn't strictly assessed. 

The reason I am concerned about this definition is that schema is very
complex and it is not obvious to me that there is an unambiguous way of
identifying unknown content, especially since it might be from the same
namespace. What restrictions are being placed on the new version of the
schema that allow a unknown content delta to be unambigously identified
in an instance document that satsifies the new schema? 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ 

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/ 



"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 

07/07/2005 09:30 AM 

To

Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 

cc

 

Subject

RE: LC124

 

 

 




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 Tuesday, 12 July 2005 16:55:27 GMT

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