- 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