W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: WSDL WG request for adding multiple version extensibility into Schema 1.1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:16:05 -0500
Message-Id: <25100BC8-5F4C-11D8-BABA-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Feb 13, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:06:01PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
>> <name>
>> 	<first>Dave</first>
>> 	<last>Orchard</last>
>> </name>
>> <name>
>> 	<first>Dave</first>
>> 	<last>Orchard</last>
>> 	<middle>Bryce</middle>
>> </name>
>> <name>
>> 	<first>Dave</first>
>> 	<last>Orchard</last>
>> 	<middle>Bryce</middle>
>> 	<suffix>II</suffix>
>> </name>
>> We want these 3 of these documents to be valid against the 3 schemas. 
>> It
>> seems that the simplest change would be to have a "low priority" 
>> wildcard as
>> mentioned in previous discussions. The schemas using this would be 
>> something
>> like:
> Can I ask why you wouldn't just use RDF/XML in that case?

Because it's probably the wrong thing?

>   It gives you
> exactly the kind of extensibility you seem to require.

Actually no. He requires "ignore unknowns" extensibilty *with* 
validation. If you try to validate a specific profile of RDF/XML, you 
could have similar problems.

Presumably, you want *RDF*, not RDF/XML per se.

> I understand that there's pushback against RDF/XML in WS circles,

Not from me, semantic web person that I am :)

> but
> really, solving this problem is *exactly* what RDF was designed for.

Acutally only sort of. XML was, in part, similarly designed. Insofar as 
both are coming form the semistructured data cmmunity (which is more 
true for XML, actually), they tend to have been built to handle such 
problems. XML Schema much less so. And OWL and RDF(S) are 1) not 
*really* aiming at this and 2) have deep difficulties with *data* 
*validation* (see current threads on public-sws-ig).

> If you want to give me a detailed example and the
> versioning/extensibility requirements, I'd be happy to do the
> conversion to RDF/XML.

Won't help. And wouldn't meet the requirements anyway. I mean, if you 
want to leave it merely wellformed XML, you solve the problem too.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2004 19:16:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC