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 18:47:49 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC106E14D8A@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
WSDL's goal is enable interoperable type descriptions; in the spirit of
interop, types from 3g languages need to be represented in an
interoperable format. For representational (data) types, the
interoperable type system of record is XML Schema. For operational
types, the interoperable type system of record is WSDL. It seems
somewhat odd to only embrace one of these (WSDL) and not the other (XML

The good news is that embracing both doesn't require unreasonable
changes. Just as there will be adaptations you need to make to describe
the operational types from your 3gl world in WSDL, there are comparable
adaptations you should be making from the representational types to XML
Schema. To use the WSDL message construct at a poor man's XML Schema
language is pretty lame.


-----Original Message-----
From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grahame@kestral.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:26 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?

At 02:17 PM 01/05/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>XML Schema provides a rich, well-understood language for expressing
>choices, sequences, optional, repeated, etc. constructs. It does not
>seem like a good use of the WG time to re-invent such a mechanism.
>Are there any interesting arguments against removing the message
>and making the operation within a port type point directly to an XML
>Schema global element declaration?

One common practice is to use WSDL as a representation of 3gl code
and to interconvert between the 2. Using schema directly instead of
the message parts structure in WSDL would encourage the use of data
models that couldn't be treated this way and lead to calls for
some mechanism to constrain the data model (such as "message parts")

Of course, this same applies for most languages if the message parts
acquire a cardinality option other than 0..1 and 1..1

Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 21:52:16 UTC

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