RE: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

Tom, I originally meant the issue 146 as really allowing anything in the
message, but I will have no problem with constraining that to "any
single element", it suits the usecase I have in mind here - a
content-based router endpoint that receives any message.

This way the spec will be clearer and more consistent and the
restriction to a single element in SOAP Body doesn't seem too bad; noone
knows how to handle multiple elements there anyway. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 23:07, Tom Jordahl wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 23 March 2004 09:19:36 UTC