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

A suggestion: could we gather up these kinds of extensions and put them in our Primer as an advanced topic?  I could see this being a primer section on how to use WSDL extensibility for non xml data models.  If not the primer, we could even have an "advanced topics Note" or something like that.

I'm roughly trying to do the same thing with my scenarios: write it up as a primer material and go into detail.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:11 PM
> To: Roberto Chinnici
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 225: accommodating non-XML data models (proposal)
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're saying that it's the case that if I wanted to use 
> a non-XML  
> data model in WSDL, I would be able to use interfaces, interface  
> operations, and message reference components, but would omit the  
> element AII, as well as the corresponding {element} property on the  
> message reference component? Furthermore, that doing so would not  
> violate any requirements, and therefore still result in conformant  
> WSDL?
> 
> For example, I could define extensions to do something like:
> 
> <description>
> <types>
>     <myDataModelSchemaLanguage  
> name="blah">...</myDataModelSchemaLanguage>
> </types>
> <interface name="foo">
>     <operation name="bar">
>         <input content="#blah"/>
>     </operation>
> </interface>
> </description>
> 
> If so, this isn't obvious from reading the specification, especially  
> because the requirements for and relationships between 
> components are  
> distributed among their definitions as well as their 
> serialisations. It  
> may be that this could be remedied by some much more modest text  
> changes and the resolution to issue 213 [1].
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 1) This text in section 2.1.1 is too constraining: """Type system  
> components are element declarations drawn from some type 
> system. They  
> define the [local name], [namespace name], [children] and 
> [attributes]  
> properties of an element information item."""
> 
> While that's true in the case defined by WSDL today, if we 
> indeed want  
> to allow this type of extensibility, it doesn't work. The second  
> sentence needs to go, or at least be moved to be specific to the  
> <types> element.
> 
> 2) The name of <types> isn't specific enough here; it isn't an  
> all-encompassing repository of types, it's for those types 
> based on an  
> Infoset model. I propose that <types> be changed to <elements> (this  
> has the added benefit of meshing nicely with the element AII used  
> elsewhere, as well as the {element} properties.).
> 
> 3) Finally, the binding framework should require bindings to 
> enumerate  
> the data models they're compatible with, and the bindings we define  
> should do so (i.e., those in part 3 should specify that they only  
> understand Infosets).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 1.  
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- 
> issues.html#x213
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 
> > No, what I'm asserting is that the WG considered the issue 
> of non-XML
> > data models and was satisfied with the present solution, which
> > accomodates them, allows the use of attributes other than @element
> > in the syntax but encourages mapping them to element declarations
> > in the model. None of the additional information I've seen warrants
> > reopening the discussion on the level of support we provide.
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> If that were the case, the resolutions of those issues 
> indicates that  
> >> the WG supports accommodation of non-XML data models;
> >> 143: "Reaffirmed our desire to provide guidance on how to support  
> >> non-XML type systems."
> >> issue-allow-nonxml-typesystems: "non-XML type systems are 
> allowed via  
> >> extensibility attributes of  message/part elements."
> >> In this view, the WG has already determined that WSDL 
> shouldn't be  
> >> constrained to the Infoset data model, but the drafts 
> don't reflect  
> >> that decision.
> >> Is this what you're asserting?
> >> On Jun 16, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> -- 
> >> 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 18:15:04 UTC