- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:48:49 -0400
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Friday Sept. 12th, the data model task force held a teleconference during which we considered the draft reformulation [1]* of MTOM based on the new XPath XQuery data model [2]. During the call, the task force unanimously agreed on the following recommendations to the XML Protocols Workgroup: * The draft at [1] is ready for consideration by the entire XML Protocols Workgroup. * The DM formulation, as presented in [1], should be adopted as the basis for future work on MTOM (though this is an initial draft and will require cleanup and editing). It should be noted that only three members of the task force were present for the call on the 12th, and while the above is their unanimous agreement, previous calls have had broader attendance. The task force also considered concerns raised by Ugo Corda at [3], and decided that the response at [4] represents the consensus of the task force. In quick outline, Ugo's concern is that, in the interests of sticking to the established scope of the existing MTOM design, and specifically in allowing MTOM messages to be sent through the existing SOAP HTTP binding, the data model formulation is presented as lossy. Although type information from the data model is used as a hint by bindings to optimize SOAP transmission, such type information is not in general transmitted. I believe Ugo's concern is that if the data model is used all, it should be transmitted faithfully. This concern presents a Catch-22 for those interested in the data model formulation: the XMLP WG has already agreed, at least tentatively, that regardless of how the specification is modeled, type information is not necessarily to be transmitted. The task force believes that on balance, the benefits of using terminology that is on its way to Recommendation status, and indeed doing so in way that might provide a basis for future specifications that would indeed transmit the full data model faithfully, outweigh any negatives resulting from the lossy use of the model in MTOM at this time. Thus, we recommend consideration and adoption of the draft at [1] as the basis for future work on MTOM. At least one set of details remains to be resolved if the DM formulation is to be used: the current draft does not discuss all of the accessors provided by the data model. For example, element nodes [5] provide a base-uri [6], which in principle can vary for each element. Future versions of the draft would need to explain that, like type information, such base URI and similar information is not transmitted. This limitation is consistent with the general philosophy that MTOM will transform the input data model to a different (but predictably different) output data model at the receiver. In general, the transmission will exactly preserve certain information, will lose other information such as base URI and type, and will not add or synthesize other information, except as directly follows from the losses (e.g. typed values change in the obvious way when type information is lost.) Thank you very much. Noah * The draft linked from [1] is incorrectly formatted as a full WD. The current copies at [7,8] correctly show editors' copy status, but are otherwise identical. I referred to [1] im the note above, as it has the original submission text to the WG. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Aug/0014.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/ [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Aug/0018.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0007.html [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#ElementNode [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-base-uri [7] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/OptimizationMechanismDM.xml [8] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/3/06/Attachments/OptimizationMechanismDM.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 10:48:53 UTC