- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:01:49 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
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. > >
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 09:02:54 UTC