W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:22:10 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC106E14C38@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
It doesn't seem like a much of a burden to define a global element
declaration that references > 1 namespace for its children. XML Schema
seems ideally suited for this.

Would it help if we worked through alternate proposals using a concrete


-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webMethods.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:54 PM
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?

I think this is very desirable. You would want to identify the different
abstractions as separate parts in the message and not bundle the entire
message into say a single part captured by the XML schema. I think
representing optionality at the abstract level (message level) is
E.g. if I can see that this operation returns a PO plus one or more
attachments at the abstract level it more valuable and we need not
burden the
PO schema to embed the optionality of arbitrary attachments that come
from a
totally unrelated namespace or content-type.

Regards, Prasad

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> <issue id="issue-message-parts">
>   <head>Should the message part mechanism be extended to support
>         parts etc.?</head>
>   In WSDL 1.1, a message can only be defined to be a sequence of
>   It is not possible to indicate that certain parts may be optional,
>   may occur multiple times, etc.? Should we do that? Overlapping with
>   XML Schema's mechanisms is an obvious concern.
>   <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
> </issue>
> Could we also start discussing this issue please?
> Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 17:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:22 UTC