Re: XML Schema implications of http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060928/

Dear Mary,

your issues on XML Schema implications on SAWSDL were logged in our CR
issues list [1] as issues 1 and 2, as they were raised well after out
Last Call ended and they do not seem to be calling for major changes.

We resolved the first issue, about adding references to XML Schema
components (not just elements) by instructing the editors to do so, and
we'll let you know when it's in an editor's draft.

In the second issue, you ask why only global elements and types can be
annotated with lifting and lowering schema mappings. While the
distinction between global and local element declarations and type
definitions is, indeed, largely a matter of policy, it is only the
global type definitions and element declarations that can stand alone
and be used to describe the whole contents of a message, especially in
WSDL. Our lifting and lowering schema mappings must apply to the
complete message, because otherwise we would have to specify how the
results of multiple mappings are put together - this would be easy in
RDF, but hard in XML. 

Of course the mappings themselves (for instance XSLT stylesheets) can
include other mappings for any internal structures as necessary,
therefore we do not feel that our restriction on the placement of
lifting and lower schema mapping annotations is practically limiting.

Hope this is a satisfactory clarification, please let us know if not. 
We may adopt some of this for the specification to make this clearer to
all readers.

Best regards, and thanks for the valuable comments,
Jacek Kopecky

On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 09:09 -0800, Mary Holstege wrote:
> 
> The XML Schema WG was asked to review the above document.
> For various reasons the individuals tasked to this
> responsibility have been very remiss and for this
> we humbly beg your pardon.
> 
> What follows has not been reviewed by the Schema WG as
> a whole, but in the interests of time, we thought it
> better to get it to you, even if it has a somewhat
> informal standing. So you should take this as a personal
> response, unless you hear otherwise:
> 
> As you indicated in our call of a couple weeks ago,
> you do not use the XML Schema formal component model
> in the relevant sections.  Reference to the component
> model would be preferable, and may make the story
> cleaner in some respects. One aspect that would be
> cleared up is a crisp statement of which types and elements
> may be annotated in which ways. However, in the case of
> non-schema namespace attributes, the exposition with the
> transfer syntax is probably easier to grasp, so there
> is no particular objection to using it. We would like,
> however, for some kind of reference to the schema component
> model (perhaps something as simple as "or the corresponing
> schema component).
> 
> It was unclear to me why only global elements (and types)
> could be annotated with lifting and lowering schema mappings.
> The distinction of global versus local elements is
> largely a matter of internal schema construction
> policy so it seems unwise to force particular policies of
> schema writing.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> //Mary Holstege
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 10:48:45 UTC