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: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:17:58 -0500
Message-ID: <014601c1d04c$5400e040$c01a030a@webmethods.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>

I had an opportunity to read thru this rewrite. This is a significant
improvement. I recognize the enormous amount of effort that had gone into
this rewrite. Is it in the right direction? I do not know - may be, it is. I
believe that it remains to be seen.

I do have a general suggestion to the WG. This rewrite does not introduce
any new substance (well, not suppose to). For last call, we can live with
the current prose. During last call, we can put in a lot of effort to smooth
out all the edges in the rewrite. And, incorporate this new prose into the
Proposed Recommendation Draft.

Comments on the rewrite.

[Comment A] I like a pictorial representation of SOAP data model. I drew
this layout based on my understanding of the new prose. I suggest adding a
pictorial model to the data model section.


Labeled Edge extends Edge

    [unordered list of inbound edges]

Terminal extends Node
    [lexical value]

Non-Terminal extends Node

Generic extends Non-Terminal
    [ordered list of labeled edges]

Struct extends Non-Terminal
    [unordered set of labeled edges]

Array extends Non-Terminal
    [ordered list of edges]

[Comment B] Section 3.1 says that rules are described "from the perspective
of a de-serializer".  But,

- title for section 3.1 is 'Rules for Encoding'
- sub section titles are 'Encoding ...
- section 3.1.1 is a rule for serializing an edge
- section 3.1.3 has rules for serializing generic, struct and array
- section 3.1.6 has rules to serialize the value of arraySize
- Appendix A has rules for serializing app defined names

BTW, in an ideal situation, I prefer rules for both serializing and
de-serializing. If that is not a possibility, then I prefer rules for
serializing as opposed to de-serializing.

[Comment C] "the label is said to be locally scoped, .. globally scoped" -
this is something new. Do we need this to describe encoding? Also,
terminology bullet 1 in section 3.1 says that,

".. label of the outbound edge alone is sufficient to uniquely identify the
outbound edge .." - well, I don't believe that it is unique enough.

[Comment D] Flow of description in the new prose is slightly difficult to
read. I would like to make a suggestion for the flow,

- Description of the data model
- Pictorial representation of the data model
- Information Items needed to represent the data model (EII, id, ref,
itemType, xsi:type, arraySize, ..)
- Mapping data model to XML Information Items
- Few examples to illustrate the mapping

[Comment E] I doubt if the text is moving away from XML Schema. We use
xsi:type and it is from XML Schema. I do not know how it will apply to other
schema languages. Also, what is the issue with using XML Schema types in
encoding rules? What is the payoff in moving away from XML Schema?

[Comment D] Section 3.1.3, rule 2, says that .. if the edge is globally
scoped (??), the non-URI part of the edge label is the local name (see A
Mapping Application Defined Name to ..)

Appendix A addresses both prefix and local name. In other words, it
addresses both URI part and local name and not just local name.

[Comment E] Section, "the value of the id attribute information item
is a unique identifier .." - this is a constraint and belongs to
"Constraints on id .."

[Comment F] Section 3.1.5, rule 1, "if the element information item
representing the graph node .. " - it contradicts with section 3.1.1 (says
that EII represents an edge)


Asir S Vedamuthu

webMethods, Inc.
703-460-2513 or asirv@webmethods.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
To: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3

At the recent face-to-face Noah and I took an action item to work on SOAP
1.2 Part 2: Section 2 - Data Model and Section 3 - SOAP Encoding. The brief
was to clarify the relationship between those sections and XML Schema. This
work has now been done, at least to first draft stage.

An xml version of the spec can be found at[1]
An html version can be found at[2]

These documents are provided so that the XML Protocol Working Group and
others can read the updated sections and provide comments and other
feedback. Please note that at this stage the rewritten sections DO NOT
represent consensus from the XML Protocl Working Group. Rather they are work
in progress on out way to consensus.


Martin Gudgin

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.xml
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.html
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 15:18:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC