RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@norstanconsulting.com>]

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'; ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org; 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.