W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Seeking clarification on resolution of issue 389

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 18 Nov 2002 03:55:52 -0500
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1037327828.1312.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Noah, 

it seems that the word value is overloaded. There are what I would call
application values, and then there is the lexical value of a graph node.

It seems that the 'missing value' case is handled in the data model
section that allows an edge that leads to nowhere (being on the plane, I
don't have the reference) and in the encoding section that specifies
that such edges are serialized with xsi:nil=true.

So unless we want to pursue the issue of the overloaded word 'value', I
think we may just remove the word 'optional' from the editors' draft.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 23:14, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Issue 389 has been closed [1]. The resolution refers to [2] and [3].  As
> editor, I have been working on integrating these changes, which should be
> visible in the XML copy at [4] (sorry, I am not set up to generate HTML, so
> other editors will probably do that soon.)
> 
> For the most part, the changes have gone smoothly, but I'm having trouble
> with the revisions described in [3].  First of all, the interplay between
> Jacek and Herve isn't entirely clear.  My reading is that the result is to
> be a sentence in 2.3 [5] that reads:
> 
> "A simple value is represented as a graph node with an optional lexical
> value."
> 
> How can it be that a value is represented by an optional value?  I wonder
> whether we have a bug in the resolution.  Seems to me that we may now have
> three types of nodes representing, respectively:
> 
> 1) Simple values
> 2) Compound values
> 3) Missing values
> 
> Is that what the workgroup intends?  If so, I'm not sure how much rework of
> the rest of the encoding section is needed. The sentence above, which is in
> the editor's draft for now, strikes me as incoherent.  Maybe I'm missing
> something?  The rest of the changes for 389 are checked into the XML for
> part 2, and I think they're OK.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Oct/0033.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Oct/0089.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Oct/0100.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#values
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 03:56:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT