- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 17 Sep 2002 09:59:16 +0200
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Noah,
sorry I'm replying this late.
I think that per the serialization rules it may be exactly as you're
writing, the problem is that before the editor's (Gudge's) copy with
inbound-only and outbound-only edges such edges were not allowed -
because the common understanding of a graph is that there are nodes and
that edges always connect two nodes; and the Data Model didn't say that
the graphs were not the common graphs.
Best regards
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 20:15, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I know this feels like a dumb question, but I'm confused (and I wrote some
> of the original text.) Gudge: in you proposed resolution or resolutions,
> what is the graph structure corresponding to the seemingly simple
> fragment:
>
>
>
> <A env:encodingStyle="...soap encoding..."> <!--struct-->
> <B>1</B>
> <C>2</C>
> </A>
>
> Am I right that, per the serialization rules, this is
>
>
> |
> |
> | A
> |
> -----------
> | Struct |
> -----------
> | |
> | |
> B| |C
> | |
> "1" "2"
>
>
> So, what I'm asking is: do I have this right, and if so, do we have a
> coherent story about the (lack of) source of edge A? I see that [1] has
> been updated to account for this. Is this agreed-to? If so, it's OK with
> me, just making sure I understand what we're doing. Many thanks.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#graphedges
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 03:59:22 UTC