[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata
It does matter when I specify my production rules to generate my DTD or Schema, which will be Part 4 of the Reg-Rep specification. I would rather keep it simple by specifying one argument (string) versus several (any SOAP type), and one return. It is my belief that I either model it correctly to so that either 1) "SOAP compliant" messages fall out of the model, or 2) "SOAP-like" messages which ignore the types in the SOAP specificaiton. It will dictate how my UML model for the operation signatures are created. Scott -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 12:10 PM To: Nieman, Scott Cc: 'Eric Newcomer'; email@example.com; ebXML-Architecture List Subject: RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata Message text written by "Nieman, Scott" > Why should SOAP detail these types at all, versus just referencing a DTD or Schema that the "type" must adhere too? Its really that simple.</Scott> <<<<<< Scott, Major agreed. If you open this Pandora's Box (which SOAP is doing!), then you let in total chaos. We all either agree to use a base standard and then strive to make it work, enhance it et al - but charging off and creating a backdoor where you can map anything else to whatever, is probably not a cool idea at this point. Example : - SOAP arrays - please, what's that? XML already happily allows you to morph an array into a valid XML structure, so this is just redundant confusion factor. It's important to stay focused too. The SOAP overlap in the Transport WG arena is obvious - its less clear in RegRep. Thanks, DW.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC