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

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

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:37:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3BE15E35.9000108@sun.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, bprice@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org


Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>  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.


+1


>  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 09:41:40 GMT

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