W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Data model task force recommends adoption of data model formulation

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:40 -0400
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEEA1B2FD.683BBBD9-ON85256DA3.0075CDEF@lotus.com>

Rich Salz writes: 

> > like a good idea to me. Personally I don't find the XQuery Data Model
> > spec overly complex, particularly when compared to PSVI which would be
> > another alternative.
> One thing to consider is the amount of "extra reading" being put on the
> SOAP user and development community.  Less is better. :)

Indeed, but to what conclusion does that lead us?  I had some hope that 
you and others from the DSig community would find the DM approach 
attractive, in part because your own c14n [1] calls on readers to become 
familiar with the earlier version of the XPath data model.  Though it does 
not appear urgent, I would have thought that the natural evolution would 
be to move c14n toward the XPath 2.0 model.  So, what is "extra reading" 
depends a bit on what you were already reading. 

I can see this one either way.  SOAP is Infoset.  Schema is Infoset. Query 
is XPath 2.0/Query 1.0 DM, XML C14N is XPath 1.0 DM.  I think we're 
getting near the point where all of these should come together.  I do take 
the point that, typing issues aside, Infoset is clearly the most natural 
model in which to discuss SOAP, at least for the forseeable future.



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 17:30:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:24 UTC