- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:50:50 -0500
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Stuart Williams writes:
>> Firstly, i think that from the discussion it has become
>> clear to me (I think) that in this data model nodes are
>> *not* labelled, only edges, which I think is what I missed.
Exactly. Not sure how Gudge would feel about this, but I could easily
live with:
<orginal chapter 2>
The SOAP data model represents information as a directed, edge-labeled
graph of nodes.
</orginal chapter 2>
<proposal>
The SOAP data model represents information as a directed graph of nodes
and edges. Edges in the graph carry optional labels; nodes are
unlabeled.
</proposal>
>> Is it the case that terminals are all (possibly typed)
>> literals (I think).
Yup. In an interleaved thread there is discussion of the need to make
clear that non-terminals never have a lexical value. Terminals have
lexical values, except for the case modeled in the serialization of
xsi:nil.
>> I think what would be really clear would be
>> to say that edges are represented by element
>> names and that nodes are represented by element
>> content, non-terminals have only elements as
>> content and that terminals have typed literals
>> as content. (of course turned into infoset'ise).
>> Maybe that is indeed what it says... I'll read it again.
The part about element names representing edges is always true. The part
about content representing nodes doesn't seem quite right, which is why
I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion. First of all, we can't use
"element content", as that doesn't catch attribute children. xsi:type and
xsi:nil also represent the node, as opposed to the edge. So in 3.1 case 1
we would have to say something like:
<original>
If the element information item representing the edge does not have a ref
attribute information item ( see 3.1.4.2 ref Attribute Information Item )
amongst its attributes then the element information item is said to
represent a node in the graph and the edge terminates at that node.
</original>
<possibleRevisionImNotSureILike>
If the element information item representing the edge does not have a ref
attribute information item ( see 3.1.4.2 ref Attribute Information Item )
amongst its attributes then, the children of the element information item
represent a node in the graph, and the edge terminates at that node.
</possibleRevisionImNotSureILike>
I think it's a bit more precise, but I'm not sure that readers will find
it more effective in conveying what we intend.
The point you raise that I think we do need to do something about is to
clarify that:
<p:looseEdge soapEnv:encodingStyle="...encoding URI
xlmns:p="pUri">
<p:a>123</p:a>
<p:b>456</p:b>
</p:looseEdge>
Results in an edge with no source:
+------------------+
|---------------------| pUri,a | NodeType: Simple |
| |----------| Value: "123" |
| | | |
| | +------------------+
pUri,loosedge | |
--------------| Nodetype: struct |
| | +------------------|
| | pUri,b | NodeType: Simple |
| |---------| Value: "456" |
| | | |
| | +------------------
----------------------
I think we do need a clarification on that. Gudge and I are both aware
that serialization roots also aren't discussed in this version, and I
suspect loose edges should be covered at the same time.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 15:08:52 UTC