- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 11:11:10 -0400
- To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Synthisizing the discussion on this thread, what do people think of this proposal for D-AC010.1? Each new architectural area has its representation normatively defined in a syntactic schema language defined in a W3C Recommendation I realize that this doesn't explicitly cite XML Schema, but it narrows the field while leaving specific options (XSDL and RDFS). This is afterall a CSF, not a requirement. Comments? Cheers, Chris Dave Hollander wrote: > I think it is dangerous to leave the form of syntactic schema > underspecified. > At a minimum, it should be a "syntatic schema defined in a W3C > Recommendation". > > Dave H > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:37 AM > To: wsawg public > Subject: D-AC010.1 discussion points > > > D-AC010.1 > "Each new architectural area is representable in a syntactic schema > language like XML Schema." > > MSFT: Change "is representable in a syntactic schema language like XML > Schema" > to "has its representation normatively specified in XML Schema". > > CVX: I'd rather have just the more general D-AC010 and leave specifics like > this unspecified. If > representing architectural areas using schema is a good way to implement > D-AC010, fine. > > W3C: What if the architectural area has an abstract model, and a logical > way to do this is to model data with an RDF Schema? > > I would propose the following: > > Each new architectural area is representable in a schema language. > > PF: If an "architectural area" is something like "security", "reliability", > etc.. then I don't say > how they can be represented in XML. > > >
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2002 15:12:37 UTC