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

Re: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)

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
Message-id: <40D06B71.2000204@sun.com>

+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.


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
>>Tom Jordahl
>>Macromedia Server Development
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 11:47:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:41 UTC