- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
From: "S. Mike Dierken" <mike@knownow.com> To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:42:34 -0700 Subject: Quick Survey - Use SOAP ... [1] - synchronous request/response generic XML This is essential for standard client/server stuff, but it would also be good to have tagged responses so they can be out of order or be returned piecemeal. Think about the types of flexibility observed in LDAP, for example. [3] - synchronous request/response RPC method calls I'm interested in infocentric/document-centric models whereby different applications are created by rebinding the methods used to interpret XML application data. For such frameworks, the requested "procedures" are really more like package assertions (that indirectly specify tag-method symbol tables) rather than direct RPC calls. This style leads to a more "semantic" web than you tend to get by thinking in terms of RPC (analogous perhaps to logical vs. physical HTML markup). The caller doesn't presume to know how the callee implements the application -- they only agree on their understanding of the document structure (DTD/schema) and the semantics of the selected package. Interpreting the same data in a different package can produce dramatically different results. Document (information) reuse is emphasized as much as program reuse in this paradigm. Infocentrism can use general support for various types of C/S negotiation (package capabilities, document versioning, etc.), for package selection, and possibly even for overriding/modifying some of the bindings. It is unclear whether I should care whether this support is designed into a generic XML system with an interpreter wrapped around it (which is necessary the interpreting the application data anyway), or whether it should be expressed in a generic set of RPC method calls that directly invoke exposed portions of the interpreter. My current system simply expresses all data -- meta-data, application data, and even the protocol itself -- in XML. Clients and servers just open up reciprocal XML documents and write their requests/responses into them in fairly high-level, descriptive terms. (I understand that other protocol layers such as HTTP or SMTP would penetrate firewalls more handily -- for better or worse.) [2] - asynchronous message to a queue (single consumer) Would be good for logging applications. [2] - asynchronous message to a topic (multiple subscribers) Could build publish-subscribe event services out of this. [?] - other - describe Suppose you want to use an XML protocol as a SIP-like control channel for data in another fundamentally non-XML protocol, such as a streaming media protocol. Has there been any thought as to extensible methods for referencing data (e.g., timecode/frames in a stream) and even managing protocol operations (e.g., start, stop, rewind, seek, etc.) in another protocol? What XML protocol capabilities might be implied? Could this also address some of the recent issues regarding binary data? Mark A. Jones AT&T Labs - Research Shannon Laboratory Room A201 180 Park Ave. Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 email: jones@research.att.com phone: (973) 360-8326 fax: (973) 360-8970
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 16:35:17 UTC