You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@tuscany.apache.org by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> on 2006/12/15 22:31:47 UTC
SDO/XSD Fidelity
In the SDO collaboration workgroup meeting yesterday, it was agreed that
improved XSD fidelity is an important issue that needs to be addressed to
make SDO successful in the web services use case. A JIRA issue for this,
attached below, has been opened in the SDO collaboration JIRA database,
and will be one of the high priority items to be discussed. Although the
issue is targeted for SDO 3, the collaboration has also discussed the
possibility of producing an earlier 2.2 release which might include a
subset of the 3.0 resolutions, if some (like this issue may be) are
considered too important to wait for SDO 3.
What we need help with is formulation and clarification of the issues.
What XML constructs are awkward, or even impossible, to work with using
SDO? Please check the list of known items below and let me know if you
have additional ones or comments on the existing issues. Any specific
preferences about how any of these issues are addressed would also be very
welcome.
Thanks,
Frank.
SDO-197: Improved SDO/XSD Fidelity
Using SDO to represent web service data is an important SDO use case.
Since XSD is the type system, SDO must provide good fidelity with XSD in
order to be successful in this application. SDO already provides good
support for XSD, but by simplifying the user model SDO has made a few
common features of XSD difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
The objective of this feature is to ensure that SDO provides good
fidelity/support for all XSD features found in common industrial schemas,
and to also ensure that SDO also provides a fallback mechanism for
handling the remaining XSD corner cases.
This feature will be used to create and discuss the list of issues that
need to be considered, after which separate issues will be opened to
address the individual fixes/changes that we ultimately decide need to be
made.
The following lists the issues known so far. Please add any new issues
that you know of, or add comments/clarifications for the existing issues.
the "." character in Type and Property names must be completely supported
(issue SDO-187 to address this)
support duplicate property names allowed by separate XSD namespaces for
attributes and elements - handing of "@" in SDO XPath (issue SDO-192
opened for this)
XSD facet constraints and validation support
xsd:key/xsd:keyref handling/support
improved handling of xsd:restriction derivation?
improved handling of xsd:choice?
consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject) for
handling XSD corner cases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-user-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-user-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO/XSD Fidelity
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Yes. I think those are the kinds of things that need to be possible, but
without compromising the SDO principals.
Frank.
"Yang ZHONG" <le...@gmail.com> wrote on 12/15/2006 06:01:46
PM:
> Does "consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic
DataObject)
> for handling XSD corner cases"
> cover distinguishing "any", "anyAttribute" and "mixed" please?
>
>
> On 12/15/06, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the SDO collaboration workgroup meeting yesterday, it was agreed
that
> > improved XSD fidelity is an important issue that needs to be addressed
to
> > make SDO successful in the web services use case. A JIRA issue for
this,
> > attached below, has been opened in the SDO collaboration JIRA
database,
> > and will be one of the high priority items to be discussed. Although
the
> > issue is targeted for SDO 3, the collaboration has also discussed the
> > possibility of producing an earlier 2.2 release which might include a
> > subset of the 3.0 resolutions, if some (like this issue may be) are
> > considered too important to wait for SDO 3.
> >
> > What we need help with is formulation and clarification of the issues.
> > What XML constructs are awkward, or even impossible, to work with
using
> > SDO? Please check the list of known items below and let me know if you
> > have additional ones or comments on the existing issues. Any specific
> > preferences about how any of these issues are addressed would also be
very
> > welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank.
> >
> >
> > SDO-197: Improved SDO/XSD Fidelity
> >
> > Using SDO to represent web service data is an important SDO use case.
> > Since XSD is the type system, SDO must provide good fidelity with XSD
in
> > order to be successful in this application. SDO already provides good
> > support for XSD, but by simplifying the user model SDO has made a few
> > common features of XSD difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
> > The objective of this feature is to ensure that SDO provides good
> > fidelity/support for all XSD features found in common industrial
schemas,
> > and to also ensure that SDO also provides a fallback mechanism for
> > handling the remaining XSD corner cases.
> > This feature will be used to create and discuss the list of issues
that
> > need to be considered, after which separate issues will be opened to
> > address the individual fixes/changes that we ultimately decide need to
be
> > made.
> > The following lists the issues known so far. Please add any new issues
> > that you know of, or add comments/clarifications for the existing
issues.
> > the "." character in Type and Property names must be completely
supported
> > (issue SDO-187 to address this)
> > support duplicate property names allowed by separate XSD namespaces
for
> > attributes and elements - handing of "@" in SDO XPath (issue SDO-192
> > opened for this)
> > XSD facet constraints and validation support
> > xsd:key/xsd:keyref handling/support
> > improved handling of xsd:restriction derivation?
> > improved handling of xsd:choice?
> > consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject)
for
> > handling XSD corner cases
> >
> >
> --
>
> Yang ZHONG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO/XSD Fidelity
Posted by Yang ZHONG <le...@gmail.com>.
Does "consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject)
for handling XSD corner cases"
cover distinguishing "any", "anyAttribute" and "mixed" please?
On 12/15/06, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In the SDO collaboration workgroup meeting yesterday, it was agreed that
> improved XSD fidelity is an important issue that needs to be addressed to
> make SDO successful in the web services use case. A JIRA issue for this,
> attached below, has been opened in the SDO collaboration JIRA database,
> and will be one of the high priority items to be discussed. Although the
> issue is targeted for SDO 3, the collaboration has also discussed the
> possibility of producing an earlier 2.2 release which might include a
> subset of the 3.0 resolutions, if some (like this issue may be) are
> considered too important to wait for SDO 3.
>
> What we need help with is formulation and clarification of the issues.
> What XML constructs are awkward, or even impossible, to work with using
> SDO? Please check the list of known items below and let me know if you
> have additional ones or comments on the existing issues. Any specific
> preferences about how any of these issues are addressed would also be very
> welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
>
> SDO-197: Improved SDO/XSD Fidelity
>
> Using SDO to represent web service data is an important SDO use case.
> Since XSD is the type system, SDO must provide good fidelity with XSD in
> order to be successful in this application. SDO already provides good
> support for XSD, but by simplifying the user model SDO has made a few
> common features of XSD difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
> The objective of this feature is to ensure that SDO provides good
> fidelity/support for all XSD features found in common industrial schemas,
> and to also ensure that SDO also provides a fallback mechanism for
> handling the remaining XSD corner cases.
> This feature will be used to create and discuss the list of issues that
> need to be considered, after which separate issues will be opened to
> address the individual fixes/changes that we ultimately decide need to be
> made.
> The following lists the issues known so far. Please add any new issues
> that you know of, or add comments/clarifications for the existing issues.
> the "." character in Type and Property names must be completely supported
> (issue SDO-187 to address this)
> support duplicate property names allowed by separate XSD namespaces for
> attributes and elements - handing of "@" in SDO XPath (issue SDO-192
> opened for this)
> XSD facet constraints and validation support
> xsd:key/xsd:keyref handling/support
> improved handling of xsd:restriction derivation?
> improved handling of xsd:choice?
> consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject) for
> handling XSD corner cases
>
>
--
Yang ZHONG
Re: SDO/XSD Fidelity
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
No rush. We'd like to start making progress on this in the new year.
Thanks,
Frank.
"Pete Robbins" <ro...@googlemail.com> wrote on 12/15/2006 06:06:48 PM:
> On 15/12/06, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the SDO collaboration workgroup meeting yesterday, it was agreed
that
> > improved XSD fidelity is an important issue that needs to be addressed
to
> > make SDO successful in the web services use case. A JIRA issue for
this,
> > attached below, has been opened in the SDO collaboration JIRA
database,
> > and will be one of the high priority items to be discussed. Although
the
> > issue is targeted for SDO 3, the collaboration has also discussed the
> > possibility of producing an earlier 2.2 release which might include a
> > subset of the 3.0 resolutions, if some (like this issue may be) are
> > considered too important to wait for SDO 3.
> >
> > What we need help with is formulation and clarification of the issues.
> > What XML constructs are awkward, or even impossible, to work with
using
> > SDO? Please check the list of known items below and let me know if you
> > have additional ones or comments on the existing issues. Any specific
> > preferences about how any of these issues are addressed would also be
very
> > welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank.
> >
> >
> > SDO-197: Improved SDO/XSD Fidelity
> >
> > Using SDO to represent web service data is an important SDO use case.
> > Since XSD is the type system, SDO must provide good fidelity with XSD
in
> > order to be successful in this application. SDO already provides good
> > support for XSD, but by simplifying the user model SDO has made a few
> > common features of XSD difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
> > The objective of this feature is to ensure that SDO provides good
> > fidelity/support for all XSD features found in common industrial
schemas,
> > and to also ensure that SDO also provides a fallback mechanism for
> > handling the remaining XSD corner cases.
> > This feature will be used to create and discuss the list of issues
that
> > need to be considered, after which separate issues will be opened to
> > address the individual fixes/changes that we ultimately decide need to
be
> > made.
> > The following lists the issues known so far. Please add any new issues
> > that you know of, or add comments/clarifications for the existing
issues.
> > the "." character in Type and Property names must be completely
supported
> > (issue SDO-187 to address this)
> > support duplicate property names allowed by separate XSD namespaces
for
> > attributes and elements - handing of "@" in SDO XPath (issue SDO-192
> > opened for this)
>
>
> This looks like what I have run into in the C++ implementation
(discussion
> on another thread) where my conclusion was property names need to be
QNames.
>
> XSD facet constraints and validation support
> > xsd:key/xsd:keyref handling/support
> > improved handling of xsd:restriction derivation?
> > improved handling of xsd:choice?
> > consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject)
for
> > handling XSD corner cases
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> What is your timescale for this work. It's something I've worked a lot
on in
> the C++ area.. but I'm of fon leave for 2 weeks now!
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pete
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO/XSD Fidelity
Posted by Pete Robbins <ro...@googlemail.com>.
On 15/12/06, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In the SDO collaboration workgroup meeting yesterday, it was agreed that
> improved XSD fidelity is an important issue that needs to be addressed to
> make SDO successful in the web services use case. A JIRA issue for this,
> attached below, has been opened in the SDO collaboration JIRA database,
> and will be one of the high priority items to be discussed. Although the
> issue is targeted for SDO 3, the collaboration has also discussed the
> possibility of producing an earlier 2.2 release which might include a
> subset of the 3.0 resolutions, if some (like this issue may be) are
> considered too important to wait for SDO 3.
>
> What we need help with is formulation and clarification of the issues.
> What XML constructs are awkward, or even impossible, to work with using
> SDO? Please check the list of known items below and let me know if you
> have additional ones or comments on the existing issues. Any specific
> preferences about how any of these issues are addressed would also be very
> welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
>
> SDO-197: Improved SDO/XSD Fidelity
>
> Using SDO to represent web service data is an important SDO use case.
> Since XSD is the type system, SDO must provide good fidelity with XSD in
> order to be successful in this application. SDO already provides good
> support for XSD, but by simplifying the user model SDO has made a few
> common features of XSD difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
> The objective of this feature is to ensure that SDO provides good
> fidelity/support for all XSD features found in common industrial schemas,
> and to also ensure that SDO also provides a fallback mechanism for
> handling the remaining XSD corner cases.
> This feature will be used to create and discuss the list of issues that
> need to be considered, after which separate issues will be opened to
> address the individual fixes/changes that we ultimately decide need to be
> made.
> The following lists the issues known so far. Please add any new issues
> that you know of, or add comments/clarifications for the existing issues.
> the "." character in Type and Property names must be completely supported
> (issue SDO-187 to address this)
> support duplicate property names allowed by separate XSD namespaces for
> attributes and elements - handing of "@" in SDO XPath (issue SDO-192
> opened for this)
This looks like what I have run into in the C++ implementation (discussion
on another thread) where my conclusion was property names need to be QNames.
XSD facet constraints and validation support
> xsd:key/xsd:keyref handling/support
> improved handling of xsd:restriction derivation?
> improved handling of xsd:choice?
> consistent fallback strategy (e.g., open/sequenced dynamic DataObject) for
> handling XSD corner cases
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
What is your timescale for this work. It's something I've worked a lot on in
the C++ area.. but I'm of fon leave for 2 weeks now!
Cheers,
--
Pete