Re: LC101/LC104 - proposed text

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>What do you mean by "attributes on properties"?  I understand attributes
>on elements.  And I understand properties can have structured values.
>But I'm not sure which you mean, or something else.
>
To be really complete in our description of the extensibility model at 
the Information Model (abstract properties) level, we need to capture 
the equivalent of the Attribute Information Item based extensibility 
points shown in the XML Infoset representation section (@{any}).  I did 
not see that come across in the text proposed by Glen.

Agree we will need to phrase this appropriately but I don't see a 
conflict of interest :) in using the XML terminology like attributes as 
the Information Model section already uses other XML things like defining

[reference parameters] :  xs:any  (0..unbounded)
and description of which states "Reference parameters are element 
information items.."

Additionally the XML Infoset Model shows:

/wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:Address/@{any}
/wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:ReferenceParameters/@{any}
/wsa:EndpointReference/@{any}

So, the AII based extensibility is shown directly on the "equivalent" of 
a property.

Finally current proposal from Glen says

>This specification defines a core set of properties, but it is also possible
>for other specifications to extend these with other properties.

This does not capture the extensibility of the core properties (already 
defined in WS-A) itself.
I would like to see that captured as well.

Regards,

Prasad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: LC101/LC104 - proposed text
Resent-Date: 	Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:35:14 +0000
Resent-From: 	public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Date: 	Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:33:50 -0700
From: 	Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
To: 	Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
CC: 	public-ws-addressing@w3.org


Glen,

This is pretty good. The proposed text does not seem to cover 
modification via extension of the abstract properties  already defined 
in section 2.1 (core-properties).  Was that intentional? Section 2.2 XML 
Infoset Representation explicitly shows it as allowed.

Also do we need to speak to extension attributes on properties? I had it 
covered in my original proposal as below..

"The information model of an end point reference is extensible in that 
additional properties and attributes on the properties may be added.  
See the XML Infoset model section for a formal specification of the 
extensibility points at the XML Infoset level.",

Regarding the pseudo-schema in  XML infoset section not showing the 
{any} element and the @{any} attributes, this was flagged in the LC 
issue I raised 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Apr/0002.html

Thanks, Prasad

Glen Daniels wrote:

>Hi folks:
>
>Here's an amended proposal for LC101/104.  Replace first sentence in
>section 2.1 with:
>
>---
>An endpoint reference is a collection of abstract properties.  This
>specification defines a core set of properties, but it is also possible
>for other specifications to extend these with other properties.  The
>semantics and XML Infoset representation (see next section) for any such
>extension properties will be described in their defining specifications.
>
>The core properties are as follows:
>---
>
>With regard to the XML infoset section, I notice that we're missing
>pseudo-schema for the {any} element and the @{any} attribute - I think
>we should add that.  Then, after the last
>"/wsa:EndpointReference/@{any}" definition and before the example, we
>should add:
>
>---
>NOTE: Specifications which describe any extension elements or attributes
>used to augment the above model will explain any effects those
>extensions may have on the abstract properties.  They may affect either
>the core properties or extension properties as defined in section 2.1.
>---
>
>I think this gets across what we discussed on Monday.
>
>Thanks,
>--Glen
>