- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 20:09:50 -0500
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Mar 7, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: [snip] > I am quite worried about replacing the component model with something > which may be as hard to decipher this late in the game. No one wants that, I'm sure. This is why I'm against Arthur's clever proposal...it only might *seem* less complex. > I am not yet convinced that we need to make drastic changes like this > instead of fixing bugs at this point. Component model provides an > abtraction to talk about composition within the language (i.e. WSDLs), > composition with another (i.e. Schema), composition with constraints... > By the time you get rif of the abstraction away, the things that one is > abstracting from, ie. Documents will have to be described in such a way > that we will lost the conciseness of the abstraction, and I fear that > we > will end up with a more complicated thing in our hands. Yes. But we should make *clear* the source of the complexity and how the component model helps. I hope the "Whys of WSDL" will do that. > Just try to import two separate WSDL documents with embedded schemas > and > talk about them using Infoset(s) only. Put F&P, couple of styles, and > inheritence on top. I am not sure where one ends up is "simpler" per > se. As Arthur said, it's not at all clear except that you have fewer kinds of entity (though you do have to subclass infoset items). > Complexity of the current spec is not necessarily due to the component > model, but due to the notion of having different languages, > composition, > constraint mechanisms, inheritence within abtraction and the > flexibilities that we provide. We can toss away some of the > flexibility, > (like the discussion we had about using multiple languages with WSDL at > the f2f) and it may be more tractable. I would hope that in the next last call we can make clear to the community the actual source of the complexity so that they can decide *what* they really can live with or without. Rich said, "Get rid of inheritance" (and what ever else forced the component model), but I think that if the reason for getting rid of a feature is *solely* to get rid of a certain way of explicating it...well...that's daft. However, if the community looks at the complexity of the *langauge* and says, "Well, you know, we only need one kind of document composition...", then we have a point of genuine simplification. > I would like to get to a point of closure for WSDL. I am concerned that > we are not getting to that point, personally. Amen. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2005 02:00:50 UTC