- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:23:00 -0800
- To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I'll add this as an issue against part 1. If we can verify general acclaim within 60 seconds, I'll even allow us to close the issue on Thursday :-). > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Glen Daniels > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:58 AM > To: Amelia A Lewis; Sanjiva Weerawarana > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: 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 15:23:34 UTC