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

Re: ETF: Issue 47 (SOAP Data Model)

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:01:14 +0000
Message-ID: <3C162DCA.4090200@sun.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>  
>  first, I apologize for responding this late.

 >
My turn to apologise now ;-)


>  Now my comments:
>  Your text keeps the mention about so called multistructures
> which, AFAIK, are not described elsewhere in the spec and no
> implementation supports them. Multistructures can be easily
> viewed as structures with array members (the members that are
> multi) and I think they should be serialized as such for the sake
> of simplicity. So I'd like us to remove multistructures from the
> data model.

 >
My text was written before the F2F so doesn't reflect any decisions made 
  there. However, it looks to me like it is still consistent with the 
text in the latest editors copy. Do we need to open a new issue to 
address your concern or is it covered by one of the outstanding ETF issues ?


>  Generally, I'm not sure the data model should speak about
> locally and universally scoped names,

 >
You would prefer item 4 to remain in the encoding section then ?

> I'm also not sure we can
> actually have any single-reference values if you define
> multi-reference values as such that _can_ be referenced from
> multiple locations.

 >
Not sure, it's certainly legal in the encoding to have a "non-inline" 
element referenced only once within the serialisation tree. Also, any 
element with an id attribute _can_ be referenced from multiple 
locations. Perhaps we need to drop the multi/single reference 
terminology and just go with inline/non-inline ?


>  Finally, I'd certainly not mention the RPC section from the
> data-model section as RPC seems just too high above the data
> model.
>  Also we might want to add a paragraph or two about when this
> data model is used (actually here a pointer to RPC might be
> appropriate)

 >
The mention of the RPC section in the proposed text was intended to 
fulfill your latter point - do I take it that you withdraw your initial 
objection or is some rewording necessary ?

> and that it's not at all mandatory for data carried
> in SOAP messages.

 >

Issue 48 captures this I think.



Regards,
Marc.

> 
> 
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Marc Hadley wrote:
> 
>  > During the last ETF con-call I took an AI to propose a resolution for
>  > issue 47 [1]. Attached is a first cut at attempting to extract the data
>  > model specific text from the SOAP encoding section as candidate text for
>  > the SOAP Data Model section in part 2.
>  >
>  > Assuming this passes muster then the next step is to remove duplicate
>  > text from the SOAP encoding section and RPC section and to add
>  > references back to the SOAP data model section where appropriate.
>  >
>  > Comments, flames etc ?
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > Marc.
>  >
>  > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x47
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 11:03:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC