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

Re: Section 5 vs Schema

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:50:40 -0000
Message-ID: <005401c1a6b3$8299f850$807ba8c0@greyarea>
To: "Don Box" <dbox@microsoft.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Interesting though this discussion is, it is not really addressing the issue
against the spec[1]. The discussion I tried to start with[2] was what to do
with the schemas in Part II Section 4 ( was Section 5 ). It is confusing to
people that Section 5, which is about encoding things when you don't start
from a schema then has schemas for all the examples.

Note, I don't want to stop this interesting discussion, but I would like to
get an answer to the question I was trying to pose.

Gudge

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x17
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0019.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Box" <dbox@microsoft.com>
To: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:12 PM
Subject: RE: Section 5 vs Schema


> +1 from me as well. I believe SOAP (and WSDL) should deal exclusively in
> terms of XML Schema types and defer language/type system mappings to
> specs that are independent of SOAP.
>
> DB
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:47 AM
> > To: Williams, Stuart
> > Cc: 'Marc Hadley'; XML Protocol Discussion; Martin Gudgin
> > Subject: Re: Section 5 vs Schema
> >
> > +1 to this being primer material vs spec
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > >
> > > On the surface this looks really good, but I'm wondering whether it
> > takes a
> > > lid off of a can of worms. So far we have avoided defining any
> concrete
> > > programming language bindings - there were some early threads,
> starting
> > at
> > > [1,2], on the topic of whether or not we were taking on language
> > bindings .
> > >
> > > I kind of feel that if we're going to use programming language
> bindings
> > in
> > > examples (particularly in the spec.) then we should do the whole job
> of
> > > defining a language binding for the programming language(s) that get
> > used in
> > > examples in normative parts of the spec.
> > >
> > > If the PL binding examples are mostly illustrative rather than
> > definitive,
> > > then the primer may be a better place to include fragments that hint
> at
> > > language bindings.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > > [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Nov/0081.html
> > > [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Nov/0051.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com]
> > >>Sent: 25 January 2002 15:01
> > >>To: Martin Gudgin
> > >>Cc: XML Protocol Discussion
> > >>Subject: Re: Section 5 vs Schema
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>The ETF discussed this issue in a recent telcon and would like to
> > >>propose a change to section 3.4 of the current editors draft[1] to
> > >>lessen the schema bias in the examples by showing the mapping from
> > >>programming language compound types to SOAP encoding.
> > >>
> > >>e.g. the first example in section 3.4.1 shows an instance of a book
> > >>structure and a schema that describes the structure. This would be
> > >>replaced with a C language struct definition and a SOAP encoding
> > >>serialisation of the structure, e.g.
> > >>
> > >>BEGIN EXCERPT
> > >>
> > >>The following structure:
> > >>
> > >>struct Book
> > >>{
> > >>    char *author;
> > >>    char *preface;
> > >>    char *intro;
> > >>} book = {"Henry Ford", "Preface text", "Intro Text"};
> > >>
> > >>would be encoded as follows without a schema
> > >>
> > >><Book xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> > >>        xmlns:enc="http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding">
> > >>    <author xsi:type="enc:string">Henry Ford</author>
> > >>    <preface xsi:type="enc:string">Preface text</preface>
> > >>    <intro xsi:type="enc:string">Henry Ford</intro>
> > >></Book>
> > >>
> > >>or as follows if a schema is available
> > >>
> > >><e:Book xmlns:e="http://example.org/2001/12/books">
> > >>    <e:author>Henry Ford</e:author>
> > >>    <e:preface>Preface text</e:preface>
> > >>    <e:intro>Henry Ford</e:intro>
> > >></e:Book>
> > >>
> > >>END EXCERPT
> > >>
> > >>Comments, flames etc.
> > >>
> > >>Marc (on behalf of the ETF)
> > >>
> > >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html
> > >>
> > >>Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>SOAP 1.2 Part 2 Section 4[1] ( old section 5 ) defines a set
> > >>>
> > >>of encoding
> > >>
> > >>>rules for mapping from programmatic type systems to XML.
> > >>>
> > >>>There was some discussion on the last editors conference
> > >>>
> > >>about how to deal
> > >>
> > >>>with issue 17[2] regarding the schemas that appear in
> > >>>
> > >>section 5. I took an
> > >>
> > >>>action to start discussion about this on this list. Please
> > >>>
> > >>note I will be on
> > >>
> > >>>holiday from today and will not be back until the New Year
> > >>>
> > >>so will not be
> > >>
> > >>>able to actively participate until then, hopefully you'll
> > >>>
> > >>all have nailed
> > >>
> > >>>the issue by then!
> > >>>
> > >>>One suggestion was that section 5 actually defines an
> > >>>
> > >>implicit schema so
> > >>
> > >>>each mapping from some programmatic type essentially defines
> > >>>
> > >>a schema type.
> > >>
> > >>>This seems reasonable but at the same time feels a little
> > >>>
> > >>odd. We have
> > >>
> > >>>section 5 because when SOAP 0.9, 1.0 and 1.1 were written
> > >>>
> > >>XML Schema was not
> > >>
> > >>>done, we didn't have an XML based type system. So we had to
> > >>>
> > >>start from a
> > >>
> > >>>type system we did have. So Section 5 defines a set of rules
> > >>>
> > >>for mapping
> > >>>from programmatic type systems iuntNow that XML Schema is done it
> is
> > >>
> > >>>possible to define the messages being exchanged entirely in
> > >>>
> > >>XML Schema
> > >>
> > >>>without reference to any programmatic type system. Mapping to the
> > >>>programmatic type system ( if any ) at either end of the
> > >>>
> > >>exchange is an
> > >>
> > >>>implementation detail.
> > >>>
> > >>>So, given that we have XML Schema, does it make sense to
> > >>>
> > >>infer a schema from
> > >>
> > >>>some other type system?
> > >>>
> > >>>And if it does, what do we do about examples in the spec. It
> > >>>
> > >>seems very
> > >>
> > >>>strange to say 'we start from a programmatic type system'
> > >>>
> > >>and then only show
> > >>
> > >>>schemas! We are defining a language binding, even if we
> > >>>
> > >>never show a Java
> > >>
> > >>>class or a C struct or whatever.
> > >>>
> > >>>OK, that's it. I hope the discussion is fruitful, I'll read
> > >>>
> > >>through it when
> > >>
> > >>>I get back from holiday.
> > >>>
> > >>>Regards
> > >>>
> > >>>Martin Gudgin
> > >>>DevelopMentor
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011002/#soapenc
> > >>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x17
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2002 16:51:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT