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

The issue on "non XML type systems" was literally about type systems
describing un-XML-/un-infoset-like data models, e.g. the Java type
system.

Roberto


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> These issues seem to be about non-XML Schema type systems, not  
> non-Infoset data models (the language used in them is not precise).
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 
>>
>> Two of them actually: 143 [1] and "issue allow nonxml typesystems" [2].
>>
>> Roberto
>>
>> [1]  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- 
>> issues.html#x143
>>
>> [2]  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- 
>> issues.html#xissue%20allow%20nonxml%20typesystems
>>
>>
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Reopen what issue number?
>>> On Jun 16, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> +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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
>>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>>
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:12:48 UTC