RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

I actually never believed we were discussing (4), I had always assumed (3).
I am also against the idea that you can get away with sticking *anything* in
to the message.  Now I understand why Umit is so worked up. :-)

I propose we clarify the meaning of "#any" to be explicit that we are
specifying "any element", not "any stuff you want".


--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Chinnici [mailto:Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:36 PM
To: Arthur Ryman
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; WS Description List;
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

I find the current syntax nice and readble in three of the four cases:

   1)  element="myns:Foo"
   2)  element="#none"
   3)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "any element")

It's the fourth case, i.e.
   4)  element="#any" (where "#any" means "anything, any kind of content")
that is problematic.

I'm actually having second thoughts on conflating (3) and (4).

I think that Umit has a point when she says that by adopting (4) we've
moved away from an element-based content model representation.

Moreover, given that some bindings might have restrictions on the
allowable payloads for a message, it seems important to distinguish
between (3) and (4). Otherwise an application written to the abstract
layer of WSDL will feel authorized, upon encountering a message
definition which specified element="#any", to pass arbitrary content
around, including content of a kind that will be systematically rejected
by the binding in use. Then we'd fall back again in the trap of writing
applications to a specific binding rather than to the abstract interface.

Roberto


Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Sanjiva,
> 
> The attribute @element formerly refered to the QName of an element 
> (GED). However, now it may not refer to an element. In fact, the message 
> content might be a simple type, or anything else, including nothing. So 
> it is a minor misnomer to call the attribute @element. However, most of 
> the time it will refer to an element. Logically, the attribute describes 
> the message content, which is often, but not always, an element.
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
> 
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> 
> 
> *"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 03/16/2004 10:02 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl" 
> <tomj@macromedia.com>, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> cc
> 	"WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Subject
> 	Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused .. I thought we're talking about special values to
> assign to the operation/(input|output)/@element attribute to
> indicate any content (#any) or no content (#empty).
> 
> What does this have to do with changing the name of the attribute?
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>; "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
> Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:43 AM
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> Have you implemented it already? ;-)
> 
> Gudge
> 
> P.S. I've always thought it mildly amusing to have an attribute whose
> name is element ( or vice versa ) ;-)
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> Sent: 16 March 2004 11:01
> To: 'Arthur Ryman'
> Cc: 'WS Description List'
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just changed the name of this attribute to "element".
> 
> -1 to changing it AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:05 PM
> To: Tom Jordahl
> Cc: 'Jonathan Marsh'; 'WS Description List';
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction to my note:
> 
> s/elementReference/element/
> 
> Same comment applies. It's not an element anymore.
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
> 
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 03/16/2004 09:30 AM
> 
> To
> 
> "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "'WS Description List'"
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> 
> cc
> 
> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Jonathan,
>  
> You meant to say "elementReference is the name of a type so it
> would NOT appear in the syntax"
>  
> Right?
>  
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:48 PM
> To: WS Description List
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>  
> elementReference is the name of a type so it would appear in the
> syntax.  I like messageBody better too.  Or I suppose we could just get
> rid of the reference altogether, right?
>  
> <xs:attribute name="element" >
>       <xs:simpleType>
>               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
>                       <xs:simpleType>
>                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>                                       <xs:enumeration
> value="#any" />
>                                       <xs:enumeration
> value="#empty" />
>                               </xs:restriction>
>                       </xs:simpleType>
>               </xs:union>
>       </xs:simpleType>
> </xs:attribute>
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Jonathan Marsh; WS Description List;
> www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
>  
> 
> Sanjiva,
> 
> The XML Schema looks fine except for a couple of minor errors.
> Here's a corrected version:
> 
>       <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference" />
> 
>       <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
>               <xs:union memberTypes="xs:QName">
>                       <xs:simpleType>
>                               <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>                                       <xs:enumeration
> value="#any" />
>                                       <xs:enumeration
> value="#empty" />
>                               </xs:restriction>
>                       </xs:simpleType>
>               </xs:union>
>       </xs:simpleType>
> 
> 
> However, I dislike the name of the attribute, elementReference,
> since the whole point of introducing it was to allow the case where
> there is no element reference. How about @messageBody or @bodyContent
> instead?
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> Rational Desktop Tools Development
> 
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> 
> "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 03/11/2004 10:50 PM
> 
> 
> 
> To
> 
> "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "Jonathan Marsh"
> <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> 
> cc
> 
> "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> 
> Subject
> 
> Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks good to me too .. however I'll let Arthur indicate an IBM
> position as I can barely spell schiema let alone make value
> judgements about the goodness of using unions.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
> To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
> Cc: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150
> 
> 
>  >
>  > I applaud the elegance of this proposal. 8-)
>  > I hope it will be accepted.
>  >
>  > Jacek
>  >
>  > On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 18:55, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>  > > Issues 146 [.1] and 150 [.2] were inadvertently left off the
> FTF agenda.
>  > > Sorry my bad.  Here's a simple proposal for addressing these
> issues,
>  > > assuming we find merit in adding this functionality.
>  > >
>  > > Issue 146 Should WSDL be able to describe an operation with
> *anything*
>  > > in the message? [.1]
>  > >
>  > > Issue 150 Indicating empty bodies [.2]
>  > >
>  > > When using XML SchemaS, The element attribute points to a
> QName of a
>  > > GED, preventing either empty bodies, or unconstrained
> content.  Special
>  > > values of the element attribute could indicate these
> conditions.
>  > >
>  > > Status quo:
>  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="xs:QName"
> use="optional" />
>  > >
>  > > Proposal:
>  > >   <xs:attribute name="element" type="elementReference"
> use="optional" />
>  > >
>  > >   <xs:simpleType name="elementReference">
>  > >     <xs:union>
>  > >       <xs:simpleType memberTypes="xs:QName">
>  > >         <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
>  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#any"/>
>  > >           <xs:enumeration value="#empty"/>
>  > >         </xs:restriction>
>  > >       </xs:simpleType>
>  > >     </xs:union>
>  > >   </xs:simpleType>
>  > >
>  > > (I hope I have got that syntax right.  Should be enough to
> spark
>  > > discussion anyway...)
>  > >
>  > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x146
>  > > [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x150
>  > >

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 17:07:56 UTC