- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:06:22 -0500
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
On Mar 7, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Bijan et al., > > I think it is possible to eliminate the component model by talking > about documents and collections of documents. Yes I recall your sketch of this proposal. It's still unclear whether it would be *overall* simpler or less confusing. I have few intuitions here. > The current component model text could be modified slightly so that > what we now call components become "specializations" of infoset > Element Information Items. Which itself could be confusing for some, for all I know :( > Every component corresponds to an element, so rather that call it a > component, we can call it a kind of element item, e.g. Interface Item, > Binding Item, instead of Interface Component, Binding Component. We > augment the Infoset properties with the additional properties that are > derived from the raw XML and that are currently described in our spec, > e.g an Interface Item has an [operations] property that is the set of > Operation Items that are its children. That seems to hide components in infoset clothing. Might be worth it, but it doesn't *really* lower the conceptual overhead, afaict. > In addition to the Items, we need to describe the constraints on the > collection of infosets that correspond to all the included and > imported documents. For example. > The result would be that we eliminate the concept of component. There > would be some simplifications to the text since we inherit all the > infoset constraints. However, the spec would still be roughly as > complex. Ah, yes. Ok, We agree then. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 16:13:35 UTC