RE: LC124

Ah, I think I see your concern.  IIUC, WSDL 1.1 provided a schema for
soap-encoded messages but it wasn't actually the "right" schema for
validation.  

 

However, I think there's a difference between saying "here's a schema
that's advisory" (wsdl 1.1) vs "here's a schema + well-defined extension
that is accurate" (wsdl 2.0).  The WSDL 2.0document is very accurate in
its expression of message validity.  In WSDL 2.0, the metadata provided
is interpreted literally.

 

Therefore, I think these are completely separate concerns.

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

  _____  

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:41 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: LC124

 


David, 

The point about SOAP encoding is that WSDL 1.1 used XML Schema to
describe messages that were SOAP encoded, but of course the messages
didn't in general validate against that schema. Rather, WSDL 1.1 was
being creative in its use of XSD by saying that it was just the abstract
definition of the message. 

Now we are being asked to entertain a similar creative use of XSD in
that it is initial version of a family of schema versions and the
messages validate against any member of the family rather than the
initial one the appears in the WSDL 2.0 document. 

In neither case are we to interpret the schema literally. 

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/