RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping

David,

the mapping in English prose specifies the following for extensions:

1) A component with a known extension is mapped according to the rules
specified by the extension.
2) A component with unknown optional extension is mapped as if the
extension wasn't there (we assume optional extensions don't change the
semantics) and the extension is added there as XMLLiteral (or as string
literal for extension attributes)
3) A component with unknown mandatory extension is not mapped at all.

The XSLT that we can provide will know the extensions for the bindings
etc., but it won't know any user extensions. I'm not sure how to make it
extensible, so that users would be able to plug in their stylesheets for
components with the extensions that they know. I suspect it'll be easier
for such user just to tweak our stylesheet than to try to plug into our
extensibility points.

Maybe I'm overlooking something simple here. Can you please give me more
details about how you would apply the XSLT and how the users would apply
their transformations for the extensions they know, to come up with the
resulting RDF form?

Thanks,

Jacek

On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 12:52 -0500, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
wrote:
> Jacek,
> 
> > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] 
> > . . .
> > I agree with you on both points, and that's why I'm unsure 
> > whether we can present an XSLT stylesheet as the only 
> > normative expression of the mapping, if it only works for 
> > WSDL files with no known mandatory extensions.
> 
> I'm not understanding why you are reaching this conclusion.  Wouldn't
> the exact same thing be true whether the mapping is normatively
> expressed in XSLT or English prose?  If a mandatory extension changes
> the semantics then the extension would have to provide a new mapping,
> whether or not it is expressed in XSLT or English prose, wouldn't it?  I
> suppose the new mapping could be expressed in terms of a set of diffs
> from the old one, but again, this would be true of both XSLT and English
> prose.  
> 
> Can you clarify why you think the situation is different if the XSLT is
> normative?
> 
> thanks,
> David Booth
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 18:31:24 UTC