W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2007

RE: Minutes, 18 January 2007 WS Description WG telcon

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:07:07 -0500
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7BFC15EF.87135CCA-ON8525726B.0057383B-8525726B.00588B41@ca.ibm.com>
Jonathan,

I propose that we leave the statements in the spec but remove the formal 
assertion number if they are enforced by the schema. It would be a lot of 
work to add assertion markup for statements enforced by the schema. We 
should focus on implementing the spec and getting it into PR.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
01/22/2007 01:10 AM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Minutes, 18 January 2007 WS Description WG telcon






Sounds harmless enough in theory.  But who would go through the spec 
adding such assertions at this point?  Would it actually help any of 
today?s implementers, who are relying on schema validation as the first 
step in assessing validation?  In other words, are you making a serious 
proposal or an observation on what coherent states might have evolved in a 
parallel universe?
 
I personally like the idea of assertions being minimal in number, 
representing those constraints a WSDL author has to adhere to beyond the 
?trivial? one of ensuring the WSDL is schema-valid.  That certainly seems 
adequate for now.
 
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - 
http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:17 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: 'www-ws-desc'; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Minutes, 18 January 2007 WS Description WG telcon
 

I'd like to comment on the discussion of CR 118. 

The current design of the spec is that we do NOT have formal assertions 
for constraints that are enforced by the XML Schema. That just means we 
don't have formal assertion numbers. We still DO have statements in the 
spec. The schema is normative and implements the constraints stated in the 
spec. 

The question of APIs for the component model is beyond the scope of the 
spec. An implementation is not forced to serialize the component model and 
run an XML schema validator. It simple must enforce all the constraints 
stated by the spec, many of which happen to checked via schema validation. 


One possible way forward is to leave the formal assertions in (and add 
others) but assign them a type of "schema". At present we have several 
types of constraint, e.g. "document" and "component". The document 
constraints are typically thngs that deal with import and include, i.e. 
cannot be stated in terms of the component model. A "schema" assertion 
would simple be an assertion that is enforced by the nromative WSDL 2.0 
XSD. However, for this to be implemented, we would have to go over the 
spec and add assertions for all the schema constraints. 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 


"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
01/18/2007 01:34 PM 


To
"'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> 
cc
 
Subject
Minutes, 18 January 2007 WS Description WG telcon
 


 
 




Enclosed. 
  
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - 
http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com 
 
 
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 16:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:45 GMT