- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:46:57 -0700
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1 from me too. There is no need to reopen this issue at this time. Mark asked: > Should RDF Schema be either disallowed from describing WSDL messages, > or forced to unnaturally contort itself somehow to fit into an > Infoset data model? The latter. And it only needs to contort itself a little, since all we're asking for is a global element declaration or its equivalent. Moreover, that declaration doesn't have to represent faithfully *all* the information in the RDF Schema -- it can be as shallow as one wants -- so the burden is minimal. The leanness of the media type spec is a further confirmation of this fact. Roberto Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > ARGH! Major +1 to Tom .. don't fix what ain't broken. > > Sanjiva. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com> > To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 7:37 PM > Subject: RE: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal) > > > >>Mark wrote: >> >>>4) Throughout - Change instances of "element declaration" to "content >>>declaration", the {element} property to {content}, and instances of the >>>"element" Attribute Information Item to "content". >> >>Amy wrote in response: >> >>>Hmm. 13 instances of "{element}", 27 of "element declaration". Harder > > to > >>>count instances of "element" attribute information item. But this AII > > is > >>>associated with XML Schema, is it not? Do we *really* need to change > > it? > >>>Again? The element AII appears in faults and in messages. In messages, >> >>I would not be in favor of resolving issue 225 by make the kind of change >>that Mark is proposing. It strikes me that this could have a major ripple >>effect throughout the specification at a very bad time. >> >>It also seems that changes like these make the spec much more obscure for > > a > >>use case that has not been proven to be a requirement. Didn't we (or the >>architecture working group) define a Web Service to specifically include >>XML? >> >>-- >>Tom Jordahl >>Macromedia Server Development
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 11:47:00 UTC