- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:37:41 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, bprice@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Dan, Barbara, > can you please elaborate on why using SOAP Data Model and SOAP > Encoding is the preferred way for you? > In my opinion if a SOAP message is to carry RDF or XMI data, the > data should be present in their "native" form, I don't see a > reason for transforming the data to SOAP Data Model. +1 > Do you suggest implementations favor the SOAP Encoding? In my > experience most implementation allow you to get to the XML of the > data and your application must already contain the > (de)serialization code anyway so it should be fairly simple to > keep that in your new SOAP applications. > If mapping the data onto SOAP Data Model the application will > either need to be rewritten heavily to work with the new data > structures, or they need to do remapping, which must be written > from the scratch. In both cases the result is costly, while using > your native XML encoding should bring little cost when you make > SOAP applications. > Do I have some of my underlying assumptions wrong? I haven't > worked much with RDF or XMI. > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > > fwd'ed to xml-dist-app on David's (very sensible) urging. > > > > dan > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:27:49 -0500 (EST) > > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> > > To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com> > > Cc: bprice@us.ibm.com, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, www-archive@w3.org, > > em@w3.org > > Subject: Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? > > Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:28:07 -0500 (EST) > > Resent-From: www-archive@w3.org > > > > (+cc: public www-archive, ericm) > > > > Hi Jacek, > > > > thanks for this. I've been trying to compose a response. As things stand I > > can't represent anyones views other than my own, ie. I can't speak for the > > RDF groups. I'll get a reply out asap. Also I'll send heads-up to SemWeb > > CG and RDF Core WG. > > > > Short preview: I agree that pluggable encodings allows RDF etc to be > > serialized. But there is a large cost associated with using alternate > > encodings, so we should invest some effort in mapping RDF into SOAP's > > object model. Maybe the resolution of the issue could be refined to ack > > that we don't encourage folks to diverge from using the default SOAP > > Encoding model/syntax. > > > > what's your view? > > > > dan > > > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > > > > (this is a resend with a new deadline information) > > > > > > Hello Barbara, Dan, > > > we kindly request your opinion on whether the following proposed > > > resolution to our issue #29 [1] is satisfactory for RDF and UML - > > > the groups you seemed to represent in our debate "re: Exist > > > non-serialisable data models?". The proposal is copied from my > > > message [2]. > > > > > > The proposal: > > > "SOAP specifies how to encode data from the object-graph data > > > model. SOAP also allows the encoding of other data models > > > representable in XML using custom encoding rules identified in > > > the encodingStyle attribute information item in a message. > > > Therefore no data models exist that are serializable to XML but > > > not serializable to SOAP." > > > > > > Please note that the issue 29 is based on our requirement R402 > > > [3], therefore we ask you whether you see any obstacles in SOAP > > > that would prevent you from serializing data in your models, RDF > > > and UML, as data inside SOAP messages. > > > > > > The XMLP Working Group will discuss this issue on its telecon on > > > Wednesday Nov 7, so we'd like you to respond by close of business > > > on Monday, Nov 5. In the absence of any issues raised by you (or > > > by anyone, of course) we'll consider the resolution satisfactory. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Jacek Kopecky > > > > > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > > > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x29 > > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0192.html > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs/#z402 > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 09:41:40 UTC