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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:05:32 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A30@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2002 19:51
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Subject: RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3
> 
> 
> 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>

I could mostly live with either - in fact I think the term "edge-label
graph" pretty much captures it and the clarification that nodes are
unlabelled would avoid others making the mistake I made.

> >> 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:

Hmmm interesting... do we have three things to represent here? Node
identity, type and value?

> <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. 

I think, if you buy the view that nodes are unlabelled, SOAP Encoding starts
at 'loose edge' rather than a node.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,

Stuart
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 04:06:17 GMT

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