- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 09 Oct 2002 18:18:10 +0200
- To: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Hi all. 8-)
The section 2 [1] - SOAP Data Model - speaks (among others) about simple
and compound values, terminal and non-terminal graph nodes, structs and
arrays. It says that a simple value is a terminal graph node and that a
compound value is a non-terminal graph node. The latter need not be
true, consider an empty struct or array - both are terminal nodes but
certainly not simple values.
Further, the distinction between terminal and non-terminal graph nodes
brings confusion when combined with the newly agreed-on attribute name
'nodeType' (created for issue 231 [2] resolution) because while section
2.2 differentiates terminal and non-terminal nodes and single- and
multi-reference nodes while this nodeType attribute introduces a third
differentiation.
Since the terminal vs. non-terminal node distinction is only used in
places where it is used (mostly?) improperly and where what matters is
the difference between a simple value and a compound value, represented
by a struct node or an array node (these names are introduced in section
2.3), I think the terminal and non-terminal distinction should be
removed or replaced by the compound vs. simple value distinction.
My opinion is that this would be an editorial change because it only
simplifies terminology used in a few places in section 2 and 3 of the
Adjuncts.
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
P.S: if editors shouldn't be CCd as in this message, please tell me.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.html#datamodel
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x231
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 12:18:12 UTC