- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:55:26 -0500
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Thanks Martin:
A comment and question inline:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 7:11 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
[snip]
> 1. We agreed on the call that the message attribute always refered
> to an element declaration in the {element declarations} property of the
> definitions component.
It's my understanding that we are renaming this attribute to "element"
to more clearly reflect this fact.
[snip]
> 3. We agreed that references to things that were not elements would
> require a new collection property, akin to {element declarations} on
> the
> definitions component AND a new attribute in place of the message
> attribute to refer to such constructs.
*AND* a new component property?
> The spec at[1] has the diffs that cover 1. The changes are in section
> 2.4 (Message Reference) with identical changes to Section 2.5 (Fault
> Reference).
The diffs, in so far as I can follow them, seem to constrain {message}
to element declarations, regardless of what type system the element
declarations come from. That's fine, but I just want to check that that
is how we're going. In which case, I favor renaming the component to
something less generic as well, like "element".
[snip]
> I note that 3. is already covered by text in section 3.2:
>
> "The extension specification SHOULD, if necessary, define additional
> properties of 2.1.1 The Definitions Component to hold the components of
> the referenced type system. It is expected that additional
> extensibility
> attributes for Message Reference and Fault Reference components will
> also be defined, along with a mechanism for resolving the values of
> those attributes to a particular imported type system component."
Am I wrong in reading that to say that my extensibility attribute
owlClass should populate the current {message} component property with
URIs which resolve to components in my new {classes} collection
property? If so, that seems to contradict things in section 2.4.
Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 07:55:30 UTC