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

Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:06:58 -0000
Message-ID: <003d01c1cc22$4bae8f10$8601a8c0@greyarea>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
All element information items represent edges. For a graph *node* with
multiple inbound edges exactly one of the 'edge' EIIs will represent the
node. The other edge EIIs will ref the EII that represents the node.

So an EII that represents a node also represents one inbound edge to that
node.

Hope this helps

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Martin Gudgin"
<marting@develop.com>; "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3


> I agree... this is great work.
>
> I think I have a problem with section 3.1.1. which seems to contain a
> contradiction. The first sentence states: "Each graph edge is encoded as
an
> element information item and each element information item represents a
> graph edge." The problem being the statement that each element information
> item represents a graph edge. The contractiction arises from the first
entry
> in the itemised list that follows: "...then the element information item
is
> said to represent a node in the graph and the edge terminates at that
node."
> This now states that element information items can also represent graph
> nodes - contraticting the initial sentence.
>
> There is perhaps more 'strippyness' here... (one form of RDF syntax looks
> very like this too)
>
>    <node>
>       <edge>
>          <node>
>             <edge>terminalNodeTypedLiteral</edge>
>             <edge/>
>          </node>
>       </edge>
>       <edge/>
>       <edge/>
>    </node>
>
> Consider this graph:
>
>           edgeB       +-------------+
>       +-------------->+ "terminalB" |
>       |               +-------------+
>       |
>  +----+----+  edgeA   +-------------+
>  | structA +--------->+ "terminalA" |
>  +----+----+          +-------------+
>       |
>       |    edgeC      +---------+ edgeD  +-------------+
>       +-------------->+ structB +------->+ "terminalD" |
>                       +----+----+        +-------------+
>                            |
>                            |   edgeF     +-------------+
>                            +-------------+ "terminalE" |
>                                          +-------------+
>
> I think that is appealing to encode the nested structure something like:
>
> <structA>
> <edgeA>terminalA</edgeA>
> <edgeB>terminalB</edgeB>
> <structB>
>                <edgeD>terminalD</edgeD>
>                <edgeF>terminalF</edgeF>
>             </structB>
>
> </structA>
>
> however in doing so we loose the graph edgeC. We need to introduce edgeC
as
> an element to maintain the phasing of the stripes, thus:
>
>   <structA>
>     <edgeA>terminalA</edgeA>
>     <edgeB>terminalB</edgeB>
>     <edgeC>
>       <structB>
>         <edgeD>terminalD</edgeD>
>         <edgeF>terminalF</edgeF>
>       </structB>
>     </edgeC>
>   </structA>
>
> Does this make any sense or is this a complete non-problem?
>
> Best regards
>
> Stuart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> > Sent: 15 March 2002 09:12
> > To: Martin Gudgin; Noah Mendelsohn
> > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3
> >
> >
> > +1, tremendous job!
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> >    * Section 3.1.1, bullet 1, "then the element information
> > item is said to
> >      represent"
> >      Should it be read as "this element information item"
> > (i.e. "the edge
> >      element information item") or "the node element
> > information item"?
> >    * Section 3.1.2, Unicode
> >      Didn't we say recently UTF-8 or UTF-16?
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> > Tim Ewald wrote:
> >
> > > I love this new version, especially the language in section 2 that
> > > clarifies the roll of the SOAP data model relative to XSD.
> > I also like
> > > the clarifications in section 3 about the precise meaning
> > of xsi:type in
> > > the context of the SOAP encoding.
> >
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 08:07:25 GMT

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