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

RE: LC124 Options

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:24:42 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507E2FCFE@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Can you describe the semantics of this option more precisely than
pointing to Henry's presentation?  That's not exactly spec-ready.

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:41 AM
To: WS-Description WG
Subject: LC124 Options

 

I enclose options for resolving LC124, based upon Paul Downey's note at
[1].  I list excluded options in separate list at the end.  Please let
me know anything I've missed or should be changed

 

In all cases, ignoreUnknowns is an optional attribute or element.  A
true value indicates whether Schema types are to be interpreted as
specified at [2] for the purposes of validation.

 

1. Schema annotation

<xs:annotation>

  <xs:appinfo><wsdx:ignoreUnknowns/></xs:appinfo>

</xs:annotation>

<xs:element/>

 

Pro: A Schema annotation allows this mode of processing to be used
outside of the WSDL context.  

 

Con: A WSDL processor may be simpler to implement if the processing
model is specified outside the context of Schema.  What is the scope of
allowable annotatins?

 

2. WSDL Types extension

<wsdl:types wsdx:ignoreUnknowns>

 

Pro: Minimal syntax and solution.

 

Con: May not be sufficiently flexible or powerful.

 

3. Extension on each child of wsdl:types

<wsdl:types>

   <xs:import wsdx:ignoreUnknowns/>

 

Pro: Allows medium grained control over types

 

Con: Medium grained control - perhaps too much or too little?

 

4. New WSDL Type element

<wsdl:types/>

<wsdl:ignoreUnknownTypes/>

 

Pro: Minimal syntax and solution

 

Con: May not be sufficiently flexible or powerful

 

5. Feature

<interface name="ns1:Bank">

   <feature uri="http://@@ignoreUnknowns" required="true"/>

 

Pro: Re-use of the F&P syntax, processing model and extensibility
structure

 

Con: May not need entire F&P model, may not get implemented in WSDL
processors that do not implement F&P

 

6. Interface (I), Binding(B), Endpoint(E), Operation(O), Message(M)
Extension

 

<interface wsdx:ignoreUnknowns/>

<operation wsdx:ignoreUnknowns/>

...

Pro: Fine grained control over application of processing model, 

 

Con: May re-invent part of F&P extensibility model, especially for
composition

 

 

Excluded options

 

1. ignoreUnknowns is the rule

 

2. Same rules as above, but with ignoreUnknowns as the default

 

Cheers,

Dave

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0012.html

[2] http://www.markuptechnology.com/XMLEu2004/

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Join CEO Alfred Chuang and CTO Mark Carges on June 15 for a unique
online 
event, giving you the first look at a new category of enterprise
software 
built specifically for Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA).

Register Now.  It's Free!

http://www.bea.com/events/june15
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 16:24:50 GMT

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