Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150

Likewise +1.

--G

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed resolutions for issues 146 and 150


> 
> +1 as well.  Like Tom, I was not aware that "#any" was intended to mean
> "any content" rather than "any element," I am *strongly* opposed to the
> introduction of such a thing.  Case 4, as given, should be ruled out;
> #any should apply to "any element".
> 
> Amy!
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:34:44 +0600
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > +1 for changing the semantics of #any to mean "any element" instead of
> > "any stuff you want."
> > 
> > That's very consistent with the design of WSDL; we support XSD and
> > GED declaring stuff with element= and others can do their own thing
> > using extensibility.
> > 
> > How can anyone argue against it? ;-)
> > 
> > Sanjiva.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
> > To: "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:07 AM
> > Subject: 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
> > > >  > >
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect/Principal Engineer
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:58:08 UTC