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

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

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0309162126520.17885-100000@smtp.datapower.com>

> > 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 tried to read the XPath 2.0 DM document.  It's a last call draft
whose comment period ended several weeks ago.  I would have thought
the experiences of SOAP 1.1 and XML Schema draft-ness would have
made everyone desperately want to avoid that again. :)  I only
skimmed the document, but there were enough references to the
"Formal Semantics" and "Operators" documents that I think those would
really have to be added to the reading pile.

The DSIG and Encryption WG's are closed, finished, Katy bar-the-door done.
The only way they are going to migrate is if new WG's get created.
I doubt that will ever happen, if only because the security folks are
moving on to higher-level specs like WS-Security et al, and the WS-I's
security profile WG.  I'd be surprised if many crypto folks see a
compelling need to talk about data models, when crypto is all about bytes
and serialization, not abstract data.

> 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.

Perhaps.  But I don't need any of that 2.0 stuff to do SOAP or secure SOAP.
I can even pretend it doesn't exist and never be impacted.

> 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.

Thank you.  So you agree that references to the XPath 2.0 DM should
be excised.


Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 21:50:04 UTC

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