Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?

Hi Mike,

I agree there are significant advantages to using XSD instead of
a message syntax. This whole thread started because of a question
on whether the message syntax should grow .. which is the case
that you covered in the more realistic medical record example.

In order to make the XSD approach work I believe we will have to
define conventions for the complexType of the message. That is,
we shouldn't leave open the option of whether to use an attribute
or element to describe a logical part of the message. Do you agree?

In the grand scheme of things, I don't want to spend any more
cycles arguing about this. However, I cannot accept changing this
for WSDL 1.2 as this is a breaking change. Do you agree this is a
WSDL 2.0 level function? (Does anyone else disagree?)

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:42 PM
Subject: RE: issue: optional parts in <message>?


> I agree that the "pseudo-facet" syntax proposed in the WSDL extension
> for DIME is a bit verbose. However, I believe the advantages to be
> gained by using schema out weight working with the complex syntax. (I
> also think we can address most of the syntax issues in future versions
> of schema.)
>
> Using schema to describe content has the advantage that those
> descriptions can be shared across all levels of an application. For
> example, an XML store and the messaging layer would share the same
> schema for a "medical-record". I could simply pull a "medical-record"
> instance from the store and pass it to the messaging layer.
>
> Also, it isn't clear how a message/part representation deals with more
> complex content. For example, a more realistic version of the
> media-record schema would probably include multiple sets of images:
>
> <xs:complexType name="medical-record">
>   <xs:sequence>
>     <xs:element name="person-name" type="xs:string"/>
>     <xs:element name="xray-set" maxOccurs="unbounded">
>       <xs:complexType>
>               <xs:sequence>
>           <xs:element name="description" type="xs:string"/>
>           <xs:element name="left-view" type="tns:gif"/>
>           <xs:element name="right-view" type="xs:gif"/>
>               </xs:sequence>
>       </xs:complexType>
>     </xs:element>
>   </xs:sequence>
> </xs:complexType>
>
> How would this be represented using message/part?
>
>   == Mike ==
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:44 AM
> > To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > Subject: Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?
> >
> > Thanks Mike for showing exactly what non-XSD types being described in
> > XSD would look like. So it comes down to:
> >
> > > >    <xs:complexType name="medical-record">
> > > >     <xs:sequence>
> > > >      <xs:element name="person-name" type="xs:string"/>
> > > >      <xs:element name="head-xray" type="tns:gif"/>
> > > >     </xs:sequence>
> > > >    </xs:complexType>
> > > >
> > > >    <xs:simpleType name="gif">
> > > >     <xs:restriction base="xs:base64Binary">
> > > >      <xs:annotation>
> > > >       <xs:appinfo>
> > > >        <content:mediaType value="image/gif"/>
> > > >       </xs:appinfo>
> > > >      </xs:annotation>
> > > >     </xs:restriction>
> > > >    </xs:simpleType>
> >
> > vs.:
> >
> > > >     <message name="medical-record">
> > > >         <part name="person-name" type="xsd:string"/>
> > > >         <part name="head-xray" mimeType="image/gif"/>
> > > >     </message>
> >
> > I still maintain that the latter is a *much* more natural
> > way to express the statement that message consists of two
> > items, the patient's name and his xray.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >

Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 19:37:49 UTC