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

RE: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 09 Sep 2002 17:13:18 +0200
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1031584399.18373.15.camel@krava>

 Gudge,
 as I see it, mandating xsi:nil would do, but I don't think it's
advisable; it's been discussed at lengths before.
 I think the Encoding should say how the "root" element (and its name)
is formed, but I don't think inbound-only edges are necessary and I
think they would be overkill (what if there are two inbound-only edges
in a graph?)
 Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

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


On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 15:53, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> So if we mandated xsi:nil, the array case would be fine?
>  
> The only case that I know of where we have an 'inbound' only edge is the first edge in the graph ( the one represented by the top-level element of the serialization ). One could argue that this is not really an edge, but only a node. I'd be happy to amend the doc along those lines if that's what people want.
>  
> Gudge
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> 	Sent: Mon 9/9/2002 12:07 
> 	To: Martin Gudgin 
> 	Cc: XMLP Dist App 
> 	Subject: Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	 Gudge, others,
> 	 the text below has a big problem with arrays because it doesn't allow
> 	arrays with nils elsewhere than at the end - that's because the edges
> 	are identified by position and if an edge (that could have been there in
> 	a different situation) is not there, well, that changes the positions of
> 	the edges after it.
> 	 Now the text in the editors' copy introduces inbound-only edges that
> 	are not (AFAICS) serializable using the SOAP Encoding rules. I think
> 	these should be removed or dealt with in the SOAP Encoding. I don't
> 	really think this would be merely an editorial change if serialization
> 	for inbound-only edges was added to SOAP Encoding.
> 	 So while at first I liked the alternative below better, I now think
> 	that the text from the editors' copy is the right way to go, although it
> 	does need some more attention.
> 	 Best regards
> 	
> 	                   Jacek Kopecky
> 	
> 	                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
> 	                   http://www.systinet.com/
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 00:08, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 	>
> 	> I took an action item at last weeks concall to propose resolution text
> 	> for Issue 302[1]
> 	>
> 	> It turns out I had already incorporated such text into the editor's copy
> 	> of part 2[2] as part of the resolution to Issue 353[3] ( classified
> 	> editorial ).
> 	> The text can be found in green highlight at[4]. Also refer to clause 4
> 	> of[5].
> 	>
> 	> If people are unhappy with the resolution, perhaps the following would
> 	> be preferable:
> 	>
> 	> 1. Remove the green highlighted text from[4]
> 	>
> 	> 2. Amend clause 4 of[5] to read:
> 	>
> 	>       Certain graphs may sometimes contain a given edge and at other
> 	> times that edge will be missing. Such missing edges can either be
> 	> omitted from the      serialization or can be encoded as an element
> 	> information item with an xsi:nil attribute information item whose value
> 	> is "true".
> 	>
> 	> On the whole, I think I prefer the above, rather than what is in the
> 	> editor's copy. The problem with the editor's copy is that there is no
> 	> way to determine the label of an edge which does not terminate in a
> 	> graph node. While this is OK for an outbound edge of an array, it is not
> 	> OK for an outbound edge of a struct. The above resolution draws out the
> 	> fact that the edges were not present in the graph at serialization time.
> 	>
> 	> If we mandated xsi:nil then there would be an edge label, so the above
> 	> concern would go away, but I'm not sure anyone want's to go there right
> 	> now.
> 	>
> 	> Comments, flames, discussion etc. to the usual address.
> 	>
> 	> Gudge
> 	>
> 	> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x302
> 	> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml
> 	> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x353
> 	> [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#graphedges
> 	> [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#complexenc
> 	
> 	
> 	
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 11:13:21 GMT

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