W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2001

Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory?

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:47:06 -0800
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, em@w3.org, Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC8EF24B9.064B6211-ON88256AF5.00721E81@boulder.ibm.com>

pls take this suggestion/discussion to dist-app

David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665

                    Dan Brickley                                                                                   
                    <danbri@w3.org       To:     Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>                                
                    >                    cc:     Barbara Price/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, David Fallside/Santa        
                                          Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, <www-archive@w3.org>, <em@w3.org>                      
                    10/30/2001           Subject:     Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory?              
                    12:27 PM                                                                                       

(+cc: public www-archive, ericm)

Hi Jacek,

thanks for this. I've been trying to compose a response. As things stand I
can't represent anyones views other than my own, ie. I can't speak for the
RDF groups. I'll get a reply out asap. Also I'll send heads-up to SemWeb
CG and RDF Core WG.

Short preview: I agree that pluggable encodings allows RDF etc to be
serialized. But there is a large cost associated with using alternate
encodings, so we should invest some effort in mapping RDF into SOAP's
object model. Maybe the resolution of the issue could be refined to ack
that we don't encourage folks to diverge from using the default SOAP
Encoding model/syntax.

what's your view?


On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> (this is a resend with a new deadline information)
>  Hello Barbara, Dan,
>  we kindly request your opinion on whether the following proposed
> resolution to our issue #29 [1] is satisfactory for RDF and UML -
> the groups you seemed to represent in our debate "re: Exist
> non-serialisable data models?". The proposal is copied from my
> message [2].
>  The proposal:
>  "SOAP specifies how to encode data from the object-graph data
> model. SOAP also allows the encoding of other data models
> representable in XML using custom encoding rules identified in
> the encodingStyle attribute information item in a message.
> Therefore no data models exist that are serializable to XML but
> not serializable to SOAP."
>  Please note that the issue 29 is based on our requirement R402
> [3], therefore we ask you whether you see any obstacles in SOAP
> that would prevent you from serializing data in your models, RDF
> and UML, as data inside SOAP messages.
>  The XMLP Working Group will discuss this issue on its telecon on
> Wednesday Nov 7, so we'd like you to respond by close of business
> on Monday, Nov 5. In the absence of any issues raised by you (or
> by anyone, of course) we'll consider the resolution satisfactory.
>  Sincerely,
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x29
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0192.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs/#z402
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 15:46:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:38 UTC