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.
>