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

Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd)

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:32:56 +0100 (CET)
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, <bprice@us.ibm.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111011123040.6762-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Dan, Barbara,
 can you please elaborate on why using SOAP Data Model and SOAP
Encoding is the preferred way for you?
 In my opinion if a SOAP message is to carry RDF or XMI data, the
data should be present in their "native" form, I don't see a
reason for transforming the data to SOAP Data Model.
 Do you suggest implementations favor the SOAP Encoding? In my
experience most implementation allow you to get to the XML of the
data and your application must already contain the
(de)serialization code anyway so it should be fairly simple to
keep that in your new SOAP applications.
 If mapping the data onto SOAP Data Model the application will
either need to be rewritten heavily to work with the new data
structures, or they need to do remapping, which must be written
from the scratch. In both cases the result is costly, while using
your native XML encoding should bring little cost when you make
SOAP applications.
 Do I have some of my underlying assumptions wrong? I haven't
worked much with RDF or XMI.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Dan Brickley wrote:

 >
 > fwd'ed to xml-dist-app on David's (very sensible) urging.
 >
 > dan
 >
 > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:27:49 -0500 (EST)
 > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
 > To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
 > Cc: bprice@us.ibm.com, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, www-archive@w3.org,
 >      em@w3.org
 > Subject: Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory?
 > Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:28:07 -0500 (EST)
 > Resent-From: www-archive@w3.org
 >
 > (+cc: public www-archive, ericm)
 >
 > Hi Jacek,
 >
 > thanks for this. I've been trying to compose a response. As things stand I
 > can't represent anyones views other than my own, ie. I can't speak for the
 > RDF groups. I'll get a reply out asap. Also I'll send heads-up to SemWeb
 > CG and RDF Core WG.
 >
 > Short preview: I agree that pluggable encodings allows RDF etc to be
 > serialized. But there is a large cost associated with using alternate
 > encodings, so we should invest some effort in mapping RDF into SOAP's
 > object model. Maybe the resolution of the issue could be refined to ack
 > that we don't encourage folks to diverge from using the default SOAP
 > Encoding model/syntax.
 >
 > what's your view?
 >
 > dan
 >
 > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 >
 > > (this is a resend with a new deadline information)
 > >
 > >  Hello Barbara, Dan,
 > >  we kindly request your opinion on whether the following proposed
 > > resolution to our issue #29 [1] is satisfactory for RDF and UML -
 > > the groups you seemed to represent in our debate "re: Exist
 > > non-serialisable data models?". The proposal is copied from my
 > > message [2].
 > >
 > >  The proposal:
 > >  "SOAP specifies how to encode data from the object-graph data
 > > model. SOAP also allows the encoding of other data models
 > > representable in XML using custom encoding rules identified in
 > > the encodingStyle attribute information item in a message.
 > > Therefore no data models exist that are serializable to XML but
 > > not serializable to SOAP."
 > >
 > >  Please note that the issue 29 is based on our requirement R402
 > > [3], therefore we ask you whether you see any obstacles in SOAP
 > > that would prevent you from serializing data in your models, RDF
 > > and UML, as data inside SOAP messages.
 > >
 > >  The XMLP Working Group will discuss this issue on its telecon on
 > > Wednesday Nov 7, so we'd like you to respond by close of business
 > > on Monday, Nov 5. In the absence of any issues raised by you (or
 > > by anyone, of course) we'll consider the resolution satisfactory.
 > >
 > >  Sincerely,
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x29
 > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0192.html
 > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs/#z402
 > >
 > >
 >
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 05:33:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT