W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:40:02 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D04514439@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@idoox.com>, <mlong@phalanxsys.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

>I have said before, it might be nice to do a simple job of naming data 
>models.  Then we can say:  "The default data model for SOAP includes, 
>records (structs), multi-structs, and arrays, along with the 
>simple types 
>from XML Schema Datatypes.  RPC calls and responses can be represented 
>using any encoding for the SOAP default data model."  Then in 
>chapter 5, 
>you describe the default data model, and say "to promote 
>SOAP provides a standard encoding for the default data model (which is 
>essentially the one we've had in chapter 5 all along).

I like the separation of the datamodel from the serialization!

Regarding the choice between A and B, the deciding factor between the
two seems to me to be whether the RPC convention has a requirement to
the underlying datamodel of supporting rooted graphs or not. I would say
that the SOAP data model does support rooted graphs and that the current
section 5 serialization uses the "root" attribute for this purpose but
other serializations are possible. Does that match your understanding?

On the matter of naming a datamodel, while it certainly is possible to
have multiple serializations of a data model, do you also expect that we
are likely to have multiple data models for a single serialization? In
other words, do you think a given value for the encodingStyle attribute
will unambiguously identify not only the serialization but also the data
model, or do you think the two are separate?

Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 14:41:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC