Req;uest to Open New Issue on MTOM and Data Model Details

In Sept. I sent an email to distApp announcing that the data model
formulation of MTOM was ready for consideration by the XMLP Workgroup [1].
Subsequently, the workgroup agreed to adopt the DM formulation.  In the
email, I raised some concerns that should have turned into issues, but
apparently we never formally added them to the list.  Specifically, see the
paragraph that says:

"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.)"

So, as suggested on our telcon of today, this is a request to open an
issue.   I suggest that the issue be relatively broad, along the lines of
"Do a thorough review of the DM, MTOM and if appropriate Miffy specs to
ensure that all interdependency issues, including those raised in [1], have
been dealt with in an appropriate manner."

Thank you.



Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 13:53:49 UTC