W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2003

RE: WSDL 1.1 schema question

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:03:52 -0800
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02d601c2f426$a54ee1a0$02f8000a@beasys.com>

The way I look at it, languages have a variety of constraints.  Some of them
can be expressed in schema languages, others may be expressed if some hard
work is done in the language construction, and other constraints can't be
expressed at all.

Having syntactic schema languages is a good thing(tm).  And I further think
that the expressibility of some constraints in schema language is a property
that needs to be taken into account when designing a language.  In
particular, the choice of schema languages needs to be embraced and used,
rather than recreated in some other form.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:52 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL 1.1 schema question
> "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
> > I do realize that we will not be able to represent
> everything in the
> > schema, but this will be helpful to tools. The assertions will also
> > clearly identify what needs to be verified after schema validation.
> I agree.
> It feels a bit like we've simply moved the problem of accurately
> and precisely writing to coming up with accurate and precise
> XML syntax for the annotations ;-).
> Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 01:03:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:28 UTC