Re: Why do we have a component model?

The main justification for the component model I can remember is that it 
cleanly deals with import/include, i.e. it extends the Infoset across 
files. I'm sure they are others.

I too am quite worried by the complexity of the current spec, not just 
as the editor.

JJ.

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
>> * Apologies for raising this issue at this stage *
>
>
> I also apologize for being in cahoots with this.
>
>> I would like to understand why we have the component model in the 
>> spec? How and who does it help?
>
>
> Me too. Thus far it hasn't helped me (qua RDF mapping editor or as 
> user or as WSDL explicator to others or, as far as I can see, as 
> implementor; the last is speculative since I've just planned, not 
> started implementation).
>
>> Currently we have the component model in section 2 (of part 1), 
>> Infoset mapping, pseudo-schema, Z-notation and the type of the 
>> properties are specified using XML Schema types. This makes it 
>> complex and hard to understand. Is there any advantage to this added 
>> complexity?
>
>
> Plus, there are lots of tricky dependancies in the specs. The report 
> by Roberto needing to touch 7 parts of the spec in order to tweak the 
> model really worries me.
>
>> Infoset is abstract and therefore can be mapped to different 
>> serializations. Do we anticipate that the WSDL component model will 
>> be mapped to things other than Infoset. IOW, isn't specifying things 
>> in Infoset good enough?
>
>
> I'd like to know how it helps/hurt creating extensions.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>