OASIS Web Services Interactive Applications TC

RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]

  • 1.  RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]

    Posted 05-06-2002 14:22
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    wsia message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R413]


    
    There is a concise scenario nicely describing the value of semantic
    validation in the XForms intro chapter[1].  I see no reason not to include
    the XForms binding constraint technology[2] as a recommendation along with
    the Schema datatype constraint technology.
    
    My only issue with R413 is that it's unclear whether #4 is necessary -- are
    binding constraints not included in semantic constraints (#3)?
    
    Tim
    
    [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/slice2.html
    [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xforms-20020118/slice6.html
    
    > I *think* I understand the intent but not necessarily the motivation.
    > Are rich semantic descriptions of property values and relations a
    > *requirement* or a "nice to have" feature of a particular API? I can see
    > the value of having *human-readable* meta-information (aids the user of
    > the Web Service). I can see the value of type constraints a-la Schema
    > (mainly helping the Consumer map properties into programming
    > constructs). Can anyone clarify the value of richer constraints? 
    >  
    > Or, maybe, can we perhaps define this requirement as open for
    > extensibility, for example:
    > This specification should permit the Producer to specify additional
    > machine-readable semantic information regarding properties.
    > ...which would lead to a construct such as Schema's <app-info>
    > which
    > allows arbitrary (but not specified) type constraints and information.
    >