W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Proposal for dealing with root

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:24:52 +0200 (CEST)
To: Martin Gudgin <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204231552480.1979-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Gudge,
 it seems that graph roots are always serialization roots (in a 
serialized graph), on the other hand not every serialization root 
is a graph root. But I think this was clear already.
 As for the definition of a serialization root in a graph, I 
wouldn't start from the serialized form. I'd rather say something 
like "a serialization root is the node from which serialization 
starts".
 To forbid independent elements, I think we could say 
 "When serializing a graph, every node and edge is serialized as
a descendant (or self) of the serialization root(s) element
information item(s)."
 What do you think?

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > inline
 > 
 > Gudge
 > 
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
 > To: "Martin Gudgin" <martin.gudgin@btconnect.com>
 > Cc: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:53 PM
 > Subject: Re: Proposal for dealing with root
 > 
 > 
 > > Gudge, generally I like it, with just one remark inline.
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:
 > >
 > <SNIP/>
 > >  >   'A graph node that has no inbound edges is a root of the graph.'
 > >
 > > What we needed is not a graph root but a serialization root. You
 > > define the former, I don't know at the moment how one could
 > > easily define the latter. Consider the following case:
 > >   <env:Body>
 > >     <m:foo encodingStyle="{soap-encoding}" id="id1">
 > >       <m:value>42</m:value>
 > >       <m:next ref="id1"/>
 > >     </m:foo>
 > >   </env:Body>
 > > It's a circular graph and the serialization root is not a graph
 > > root (this graph has no root).
 > >
 > > I'd propose that if we don't come up with a definition of a
 > > seriailzation root (as I cannot at the moment), we can just skip
 > > this as I don't feel a strong need for this definition anyway.
 > 
 > I think you just did define serialization root. It's m:foo in your example
 > above, that is, it is always the outermost element of the serialization (
 > given no independent elements )
 > 
 > >
 > > Below, I think you also mean to talk about serialization roots as
 > > opposed to graph roots.
 > 
 > Well, it's actually hard to seperate the two, but the graph has two roots
 > ( and the serialization has two roots too )
 > 
 > Gudge
 > 
 > <SNIP/>
 > 
 > 
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 10:24:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT