- From: Asir S Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:17:58 -0500
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>, "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Hi, I had an opportunity to read thru this rewrite. This is a significant improvement. I recognize the enormous amount of effort that had gone into this rewrite. Is it in the right direction? I do not know - may be, it is. I believe that it remains to be seen. I do have a general suggestion to the WG. This rewrite does not introduce any new substance (well, not suppose to). For last call, we can live with the current prose. During last call, we can put in a lot of effort to smooth out all the edges in the rewrite. And, incorporate this new prose into the Proposed Recommendation Draft. Comments on the rewrite. [Comment A] I like a pictorial representation of SOAP data model. I drew this layout based on my understanding of the new prose. I suggest adding a pictorial model to the data model section. Edge [leaves(Node)] [enters(Node)] Labeled Edge extends Edge [label(QName)] Node [identifier(Name)] [type(QName)] [unordered list of inbound edges] Terminal extends Node [lexical value] Non-Terminal extends Node Generic extends Non-Terminal [ordered list of labeled edges] Struct extends Non-Terminal [unordered set of labeled edges] Array extends Non-Terminal [ordered list of edges] [Comment B] Section 3.1 says that rules are described "from the perspective of a de-serializer". But, - title for section 3.1 is 'Rules for Encoding' - sub section titles are 'Encoding ... - section 3.1.1 is a rule for serializing an edge - section 3.1.3 has rules for serializing generic, struct and array - section 3.1.6 has rules to serialize the value of arraySize - Appendix A has rules for serializing app defined names BTW, in an ideal situation, I prefer rules for both serializing and de-serializing. If that is not a possibility, then I prefer rules for serializing as opposed to de-serializing. [Comment C] "the label is said to be locally scoped, .. globally scoped" - this is something new. Do we need this to describe encoding? Also, terminology bullet 1 in section 3.1 says that, ".. label of the outbound edge alone is sufficient to uniquely identify the outbound edge .." - well, I don't believe that it is unique enough. [Comment D] Flow of description in the new prose is slightly difficult to read. I would like to make a suggestion for the flow, - Description of the data model - Pictorial representation of the data model - Information Items needed to represent the data model (EII, id, ref, itemType, xsi:type, arraySize, ..) - Mapping data model to XML Information Items - Few examples to illustrate the mapping [Comment E] I doubt if the text is moving away from XML Schema. We use xsi:type and it is from XML Schema. I do not know how it will apply to other schema languages. Also, what is the issue with using XML Schema types in encoding rules? What is the payoff in moving away from XML Schema? [Comment D] Section 3.1.3, rule 2, says that .. if the edge is globally scoped (??), the non-URI part of the edge label is the local name (see A Mapping Application Defined Name to ..) Appendix A addresses both prefix and local name. In other words, it addresses both URI part and local name and not just local name. [Comment E] Section 3.1.4.1, "the value of the id attribute information item is a unique identifier .." - this is a constraint and belongs to 3.1.4.3 "Constraints on id .." [Comment F] Section 3.1.5, rule 1, "if the element information item representing the graph node .. " - it contradicts with section 3.1.1 (says that EII represents an edge) Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu webMethods, Inc. 703-460-2513 or asirv@webmethods.com http://www.webmethods.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> To: "XML Protocol Discussion" <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 At the recent face-to-face Noah and I took an action item to work on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 - Data Model and Section 3 - SOAP Encoding. The brief was to clarify the relationship between those sections and XML Schema. This work has now been done, at least to first draft stage. An xml version of the spec can be found at[1] An html version can be found at[2] These documents are provided so that the XML Protocol Working Group and others can read the updated sections and provide comments and other feedback. Please note that at this stage the rewritten sections DO NOT represent consensus from the XML Protocl Working Group. Rather they are work in progress on out way to consensus. Regards Martin Gudgin [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.xml [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.html
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 15:18:35 UTC