W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > August 2002

Re: XMLP WG Issue 314 Resolution

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:34:02 +0000
Message-ID: <3D58FCBA.7000600@w3.org>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: xmlp-comments@w3.org

Hash: SHA1


Many thanks for the detailed responses re issue 314 and 316. At first 
glance, I've no further questions, and am happy with the resolution. The 
Question-and-Answer section at the end was particularly illuminating. 
I'm dashing to the airport now. Another time, I'll try to respond to the 
Q'n'A on xml-dist-app. Briefly, I'm interested (and relieved) to hear 
that the encoding rules are so unconstraining w.r.t. mix and match 
between namespaces. That's a very useful feature (though I expect it'll 
trip up some traditional RPC-oriented implementations).

thanks again,


Martin Gudgin wrote:
> Dan,
> You made several comments on the SOAP 1.2 Last Call WD[1,2] which were
> recording as Issue 314[3] in the XMLP WG Last Call Issues List[4].
> During a recent face-to-face meeting the Working Group closed the issue
> with the following comments:
> 1.	The XMLP WG will not define a mechanism for assigning URIs to
> graph edges. For the purposes of SOAP Data Model and Encoding, QNames
> are sufficient.
> 2.	The XMLP WG will not specify an algorithm for generating URIs
> from QNames. We note that the RDFCore WG have previously considered a
> similar issue[5]. We also note that the TAG are considering this
> issue[6]
> 3.	The XMLP WG will remove the ID property from nodes. It's
> presence was an oversight on behalf of this editor. IDs are only needed
> at serialization time and hence only need to appear in the encoding not
> in the data model. We also note that the navigation model for the SOAP
> Data Model is one of traversal rather than one based on node identity. 
> This end the resolution of Issue 314[3]. I hope this clarifies the
> issues you raised. If you are unsatisfied with the resolution please let
> the XML Protocol WG know as soon as possible.
> Regarding other questions you raise in Issue 314[3]
> You asked: 
> Q1: What is the relationship between node types and edge label types in
> SOAP encoding?
> A1: Not defined.
> Q2: Can they be mixed freely? 
> A2: Yes
> Q3: Can I use node types defined (somehow...) by one application, with
> instances of that node using edge 
> labels drawn in multiple other schemas? 
> A3: Yes
> Q4: Are there any rules constraining the sensible combinations of node
> and edge types.
> A4: No
> Q5: Specifically, does the type of a node determine the edges that be
> attached to it? 
> A5: No
> Q6: Does each kind of edge label have node types that they can point to
> and from?
> A6: No
> Note that the answers to the above are based on my own understanding of
> your questions and how the SOAP data model works. I should note that I'm
> not ENTIRELY sure I understand what you mean by 'node type'. You could
> mean:
> a) The type property of the node
> b) Whether the node is a generic, struct or array
> c) Something else I've not though of

I meant (a), ie types from the application domain (eg 'Book', 'Flight' etc).

> However, if it's a or b then the answers stand. If it's c then get back
> to me ( on xml-dist-app@w3.org please )
> Regards
> Martin Gudgin
> For the XML Protocol Working Group
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x314
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0221.html

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 08:08:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC