RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping

Hmm, well since Jacek is planning on doing the XSLT anyway -- Go Jacek!
-- maybe we should see what the resulting XSLT looks like before
deciding whether it should become normative.  If it ends up being much
more complex and messy than the equivalent English prose -- and
therefore much more likely to contain bugs -- then I would (sadly)
agree.  

But, gee, if XSLT isn't up to this task, then what is?  It would seem
like an indictment of XSLT and/or WSDL 2.0 if we have to revert to
English prose for this.  (Oh, why didn't we listen to Tom Jordahl's
pleas for simplicity? ;) )

David Booth


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:50 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); Jacek Kopecky
> Cc: Bijan Parsia; WS-Description WG
> Subject: RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping
> 
> 
> My 2 cents, if it's worth anything:
> 
> I'd be a bit nervous about making the XSLT normative and the 
> prose non-normative.  There are simply too many opportunities 
> for bugs and unanticipated edge cases in an XSLT, and too 
> many opportunities to desire fine-tuning or repurposing to 
> make a Recommended XSLT terribly useful.  It smells far too 
> much like a reference implementation rather than a 
> specification.  XSLT has many quirks which a mapping would 
> inevitably use that might make it difficult to translate to 
> other languages.  I think an XSLT would be a great idea but I 
> would be very nervous about asserting that it is appropriate 
> for absolutely every case.  XSLT immediately falls down if 
> there aren't (for example) accurate xsi:schemaLoacation 
> attributes to direct the importing of schemas, which 
> attributes are optional hints per the spec.

It

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 23:34:58 UTC