W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

D-AC010.1 proposal

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 11:11:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF8E40E.9050407@sun.com>
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.




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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:34 UTC