- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:25:42 -0400
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFCE4C4B23.4412D1FB-ON85257038.0058D7DD-85257038.005A3D92@ca.ibm.com>
David, The proposed text assumes a definition of unknown content. I assume that is defined in one of Henry's papers or presentations. Is there a normative definition of unknown content? I don't see it in the XML Schema 1.0 spec. [1] The word "unknown" doesn't even appear there. The value "notKnown" does appear as a possible value of the [validity] PSVI, but my reading of the spec is that it means the item wasn't strictly assessed. The reason I am concerned about this definition is that schema is very complex and it is not obvious to me that there is an unambiguous way of identifying unknown content, especially since it might be from the same namespace. What restrictions are being placed on the new version of the schema that allow a unknown content delta to be unambigously identified in an instance document that satsifies the new schema? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 07/07/2005 09:30 AM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc Subject RE: LC124 SOAP encoding was created because Schema didn't exist and the original goal was to do "object access" so types including graphs were needed. I don't understand the point.. Can you say what is insufficient about the latest round of definitions for "ignoreUnknowns"? They haven't pointed to conference papers for their definitions. Cheers, Dave From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:33 PM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: LC124 I've been discussing LC124 with my colleagues and I thought I'd post an update in case we discuss this tomorrow. 1. In general, we agree the versioning is important, and we'd like the problem addressed. 2. We are concerned that this is really an XML Schema problem and that WSDL is probably not the right place to address it. There is work going on now in the Schema WG. There are several solutions being proposed and it would be premature for WSDL to adopt the validate-twice solution (although that is a strong contender). As a cautionary tale, the creative use of Schema with SOAP Encoding was cited. The schema didn't really describe the message. We don't want a repeat in WSDL 2.0. We are concerned about locking in a solution that may not agree with the direction of Schema. 3. The boolean nature of ignoreUnknowns is not very useful. In many scenarios, it is important to know if the unknown content is preserved (e.g. passed on) or even processed. 4. There is no normative document that describes the proposed processing algorithm. Who will write that? (pointing to conference papers is not adequate). The WSDL spec should only cite other specs for Core features. I need more time to establish a company position since this is vacation season. I'll try to move this issue forward though. 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, text: 4169395063@fido.ca intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 16:25:53 UTC