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

Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:26:08 -0400
Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Message-Id: <D8A88515-C410-11D6-A564-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Monday, Sep 9, 2002, at 11:13 US/Eastern, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
>  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?)
Quite possibly a naive question but: what's wrong with a graph having 
two inbound-only edges (i.e. two 'roots') ?

Marc.

>
> 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
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 12:26:16 GMT

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