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: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:21:18 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A28@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hummm.... feels like a bit of a fudge to me... along the lines of:

	"All EII's repesent edges, and some edges represent nodes."

For the two examples I give what graphs would you draw. (simplify if needs
be... I know drawing these is tedious).

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2002 13:07
> To: Williams, Stuart; 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; Noah Mendelsohn
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3
> 
> 
> 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 08:23:01 GMT

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