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: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:34:18 +0100 (CET)
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0203151731340.18317-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Stuart,
 as Herve put it, the serialization does not necessarily contain 
the names structA and structB. The misunderstanding might be 
caused by the fact that we don't yet know for sure what we start 
with - either a root node or a root edge (starting nowhere).
 Root node: the name of the appropriate element information item 
is not ours (Encoding's) to decide.
 Root edge: the name of the appropriate element is set by the 
label of this edge, the edge MUST be labeled.
 Either way, we probably should say it explicitly.

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:

 > 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 11:34:21 GMT

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