Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?

I do have a strong opinion on this; I don't view this as a 1.2
kind of change. <portType> would have to change, every existing
binding would have to change and every WSDL would break. How
is that a dot release?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>; "WS-Desc WG (Public)"
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?


> I don't have any strong opinion either way, but I would think that as long
as
> we provide a mapping from WSDL 1.1, we stay within the limits of our
charter.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> > 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 Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:35:25 UTC