Re: NameValue and NameValueList data types

 Noah,
 at first it was not clear to me that you're reacting to my post,
so maybe in some future post you might indicate that in a way.
Thanks in advance. 8-)
 Back to business: I may be underestimating the value of
datatypes in XML Schema, as I see that language mainly poised for
validation. I'm nervous about using that language for description
of data structures, in my opinion it's too powerful for that
task, with its <all>s and <sequence>s, with its <choice>s and
whatnot.
 AFAIK XML Schema is not even able to describe all the possible
structures in the XML data model (a tree), only a somewhat
restricted subset. I don't think going further would be
practical for XML Schema.
 Anyway, I'm not against using XML Schema simple data types, on
the other hand I think that higher-level data structures are too
application-specific.
 We can agree that NameValue pair (or KeyValue) is used often
where SOAP Encoding is used but I don't see in which way this
struct is special and so why it should be a part of SOAP
Encoding.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

 >
 > Whatever the implications for the SOAP design, I think you are somewhat
 > underestimating the reason for builtins such as positive integer in the
 > schema language.  Schema is NOT just used for validation.  It is equally
 > important as input to tools that do mappings to database languages,
 > programming languages, etc.  For these purposes, having well known and
 > agreed upon names for commonly used types is extremely important.
 > Otherwise, recognizing such types becomes a theorem proving exercise rather
 > than a simple recognition of type names (e.g. you would have to prove that
 > the facet restrictions on integer actually resulted in positive only.  If,
 > for example, someone restricted the lexical space to forbid minus signs,
 > that might do it, but I bet it would be a mess to detect.)
 >
 > I think there is an analogy for SOAP encoding.  Where we standardize well
 > known type names, tools are more likely to be able to generate effective
 > programming language mappings automatically.  On the other hand, having too
 > many such well-known types makes the spec too big, and tends to get us in
 > the business of defining types that are more special purpose.  I think the
 > NameValue and NameValueList types under discussion are in the grey area
 > where you can make a good case either way.   Thanks very much.
 >
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
 > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
 > One Rogers Street
 > Cambridge, MA 02142
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 >
 >
 >

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 13:44:35 UTC