[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: clarification of issue 133
Mark,
It's
not really an addressing matter - though obviously the content of the reference
form is affected by the NO addressing discussion.
We
seem to agree that (rather obviously) the fields of a context-by-value are, in
general, different from the fields of a context-by-reference (a superset would
be a difference). The question then is whether this should be expressed only in
text or in the schema.
But first there is a specific question of whether the
two forms should be explicitly distinguished. Since a full context (i.e.
by-value or as retrieved) might not have any extension fields or the optional
fields, it is not possible to tell just by looking at a full context that it is
in fact full, and de-referencing won't do any
good.
There would seem to be three ways of
distinguishing:
a) there are fields that are always present in one form
but never in the other
b) there is an attribute that declares which it
is
c) the structure (xml type) is
different.
The first would work if the context-manager /
context-uri choice is never present in a full context.
(but if it were, it really ought to be a different type).
But it would then make it difficult for a full-context to be dereferenced again
(perhaps to pick up updates that have been applied to the master value at the
context manager).
Thus, it seems the effective fields of a full context
have to be a superset of those in a by-reference. So a) is
out.
That doesn't split b) and c), though c) gives the
advantage of forcing a by-reference context to contain only the correct fields,
or fail validation, while b) allows mixtures to be syntactically
valid.
Either way, there is
an impact on the schema.
I would suggest that the fields needed in by-reference
are the identifier (so the receiver knows if he already has this one), the type
(so the receiver knows what it is about) and the EPR/uri (so the receiver knows
where to inflate it).
Peter
-----Original
Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] Sent: 07 July 2004 11:29 To: Furniss, Peter; ws-caf Subject: clarification of issue 133
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]