Re: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1

Thank you, Sanjiva.  I hope that I haven't seemed too shrill in this, or caused distress.  It relieves me to see that what I understood as the process to be proceeding as advertised (if with the occasional bobble).

Amy!
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:58:15 -0500
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Amy,
> 
> First of all, my apologies for screwing this up. When I started working on
> the draft again I looked at Gudge's edtodo list and picked out the types
> stuff because that's something I cared about and liked. I had genuinely
> missed your contrib and so I just edited it the way I thought it should be.
> 
> So I apologize for screwing up the process.
> 
> I ran out of time/steam to finish what I started .. I saw some recent
> commits which indicated that Gudge may be wrapping up the editing ..
> 
> Jonathan: apologies for not doing my part this time. Gudge, if u can finish
> up with Amy's writing too please go for it. I will propose changes later
> following proper process if needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 
> "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> on 01/20/2003 10:01:38 AM
> 
> To:    Sanjiva Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:    mgudgin@microsoft.com, www-archive@w3.org, moreau@crf.canon.fr,
>        roberto.chinnici@sun.com, jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com,
>        jmarsh@microsoft.com
> Subject:    Re: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike butting into a conversation which seems primarily between the
> editors, but this seems to me to raise a question of process, and as it is
> my labor that seems likely to be disregarded, I suppose it is up to me to
> register at least an informal question.
> 
> At the request of Johnathon Marsh and the rest of the Working Group, I took
> on the task of modifying the materials related to schema languages/type
> systems.  This material was sent to Gudge, who suggested some
> modifications.  It was then published to the list.  It caused relatively
> little discussion, and at a subsequent teleconference, it was approved for
> inclusion, and Gudge was asked to incorporate the submitted text with some
> minor changes.
> 
> Since then, it appears that another editor, Sanjiva, has taken on the task
> of writing the material anew.  I don't quite understand.  Was the issue
> reopened at a teleconference that I missed?  I hope that that's the case,
> as otherwise, it seems to me that the process we have in place suggests
> that the submitted and approved drafts should first be incorporated, and
> then (if need arises) challenged and changed.
> 
> I hope that I haven't misinterpreted, particularly by being out of the loop
> on a conference call, and I hope that I do not offend by raising the
> question of process for the handling of such solicited modifications.
> 
> Amy!
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:15:39 -0500
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Gudge,
> >
> > My understanding of the spirit of the decision we made was to support any
> > type system in the component model but that there would be built-in
> support
> > for the XSD type system in addition. If the minutes aren't clear about it
> > we should ask the group rather than going with your memory vs. mine.
> >
> > Why do QName references break if we don't have two separate properties? I
> > cannot grok that; the single types component would have xsdTypes and
> > xsdElements properties which are what the QNames refer to. So I don't see
> > why the approach I was taking doesn't work.
> >
> > Let me finish what I was writing and then let's go back to the group and
> > decide. I suggest we go ahead and finish this draft and publish with that
> > structure and change it if needed. Given the nearly 100% change from the
> > previous draft it'll hardly be a problem to change something so small if
> > the group agrees.
> >
> > I got home a few hrs ago- I will try to work on the early tomorrow
> morning
> > my time (which will be Saturday night US time) so that we can get this
> > wrapped up.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >
> > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> on 01/17/2003 07:45:15 PM
> >
> > To:    Sanjiva Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> > cc:    "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
> >        <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, "Jeffrey
> >        Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis"
> >        <alewis@tibco.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> > Subject:    RE: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> >
> >
> >
> > Sanjiva,
> >
> > I have not undone anything that you have done.
> >
> > When did we decide that XML type systems would be treated the same as
> > everything else? I think we agreed to have XML Schema as a
> > fully-supported type system and to detail how one might use other XML
> > based type systems ( which Amy did ) and also to allow other type
> > systems to play ( by basically using similar mechanisms to those used by
> > 'other' XML type systems ).
> >
> > At the FTF in VA we agreed that extension elements/attributes ( which
> > other type systems would have to be ) would annotate the existing
> > component model with additional properties, as necessary. There was no
> > suggestions that we would rid ourselves of {element declarations} or
> > {type definitions} as far as I remember, nor can I find anything in the
> > minutes. In fact, it stops QName references from working if we don't
> > have two separate properties. I really think that having a types
> > component with a single bag of stuff is the wrong approach. I suggest
> > that other type systems add properties to the definitions component just
> > like {element declarations} and {type defintions} and defined how
> > referencing works between the attributes they specify for parts and
> > these properties ( this is, AFAICT what Amy has done for RelaxNG and
> > DTDs )
> >
> > Either way we can't publish today as the types sections are now
> > incomplete.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: 17 January 2003 19:57
> > > To: Martin Gudgin
> > > Cc: W3C Public Archive; Jean-Jacques Moreau;
> > > roberto.chinnici@sun.com; Jeffrey Schlimmer; Amelia A. Lewis
> > > Subject: Re: Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> > > Importance: Low
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Gudge,
> > >
> > > I disagree - the way you had written the component model
> > > there were fundamental properties called element and type
> > > declarations. While those make sense for XML Schema, they
> > > make no sense at all for non-XML type systems. What we agreed
> > > to was that WSDL would cleanly support multiple type systems,
> > > including non-XML ones. The approach you're suggesting treats
> > > XML centric type systems in a first-clas maner and everything
> > > else in a different way. That's not acceptable.
> > >
> > > The re-write I started was to make it clear that any type
> > > system has the same place in the model. Have you un-done what
> > > I started working on?
> > >
> > > (My CVS access is still busted and I'm currently in Heathrow;
> > > so poor net
> > > access.)
> > >
> > > Sanjiva.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> on 01/17/2003 10:35:39 AM
> > >
> > > To:    "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>,
> > > "Jean-Jacques Moreau"
> > >        <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, Sanjiva
> > >        Weerawarana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "Jeffrey Schlimmer"
> > >        <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> > > cc:    "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> > > Subject:    Types re-write for WSDL Part 1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been looking at the initial start of the types re-write.
> > > I think that types should remain in a separate section. I'm
> > > not convinced that there is a types component at the abstract
> > > level. I think we just stick with {element declarations} and
> > > {type definitions} properties in the definitions component.
> > > We agreed in VA that additional type systems would add their
> > > own properties to existing components in the abstract model.
> > > I believe that the other XML based type systems should
> > > populate these properties. We then define how the QName
> > > reference stuff works just once.
> > >
> > > Other type systems that are not XML based would need to
> > > specify what properties they add to the definitions
> > > components. I've added text saying that the component model
> > > can be added to by extensbility elements and/or attributes.
> > >
> > >  Gudge
> > >
> >  >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
>  alewis@tibco.com
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 12:04:18 UTC