OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

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


Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element


Title: Message
Claus,
 
I do not believe that is necessary as the case presented in D.2 has rather limited scope and demonstrates well what it intends to.
 
My point is that there is very little in the way of a meaningful strategy for the inquiring application to determine which name is more suitable for presentation to the user if multiple names in the same language are specified.  In my previous message I introduced the notion of content context, which we may or may not want to be implemented in the spec.  By applying context qualifiers, the publisher may offer clues to the inquiring application as to which name is most appropriate for the given context.  Also, acronymic form of a name is rather standard, but is not accounted for in the schema.
 
I am wondering whether we need to more thoroughly model the name structure to address the issues of language, script, context (legal, "proverbial", marketing), acronymic equivalence, etc.
 
Daniel
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 11:27 AM
To: 'Daniel Feygin'; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

Daniel,
 
Do you think that we have to add more examples and explanations to the UDDI V3 Specification, Appendix D.2 Multiple names in the same language?
 
Claus
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com]
Sent: Freitag, 4. Juli 2003 09:11
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

SAP, whether it's written in Latin or non-Latin alphabet, remains meaningless with respect to the language in which it's written and therefore what's significant is the script - and not the language - qualifier.
 
This issue touches upon the intended use of content in UDDI registries.  Content intended for developers has different representation requirements than content intended for marketing or legal use;  there may conceivably be other contexts too.  For instance, legal name of OASIS is SGML Open, but it's doing business as OASIS.  Also, SAP and IBM stand for various things (some more obscure than others <g>), which may or may not be specified in their complete form depending on intended context.
 
Is this something worth addressing in the spec?
 
Daniel
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:47 AM
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

Claus,
 
I agree with all what you say, but I have just one small remark:
 
1. Select the encoding for this message as UTF-8
2. Read this
 
САП
 
This how Russians call SAP. It sounds the same, but they use their alphabet. I suspect that Chinese, Japanese and other non-Latin alphabets have their own transcriptions/interpretations.
 
Cheers,
Max
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 12:12 AM
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

There was a lengthy discussion about requiring the xml:lang attribute for names during V3 development and the V3 authors consciously decided to specify it as being optional. Names like "SAP" simply don't have an associated language. See section 3.3.2.3 of the V3 specification for more details. Also, using statically defined or out-of-band negotiated default values can invalidate digital signatures.
 
A different thing are descriptions. I tend to agree that descriptive text always has an associated language and believe that the V3 authors also wanted to specify this. Interestingly, the V3 specification (section 3.3.2.4) and the V3 API schema are in sync and BOTH specify the xml:lang attribute as being optional for descriptions. This is true since not specifying the use attribute for attribute declarations (as is done for xml:lang within the description element) results in an optional attribute (see XML Schema specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cAttribute_Declarations).
 
In case we were trying to make xml:lang mandatory within descriptions, we would have a problem for migrating data from V2 to V3 (xml:lang is also optional in V2). Which language should be applied to those descriptions that don't carry an xml:lang value? Maybe this was the reason why xml:lang is still specified as being optional in V3.
 
Regards,
 Claus
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin [mailto:feygin@unitspace.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 09:54
To: 'Rogers, Tony'; 'Tom Bellwood'; 'Luc Clement'
Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

I do not see how we can have a default value without providing a way for the client to find out what it is.  A publisher may have a different idea of what the default value is than the inquirer, which means that an out-of-band implied agreement must exist between all users of a registry.  A node, on the other hand, is not involved in the interpretation of content (is it?), so it is not a party to such agreement.  A node may be used though to establish the agreement between users by publishing a special "default language" descriptor in the node businessEntity.  It could be either in the businessEntity's categoryBag or down at the service level to allow for multiple different default languages on multiple services or endpoints, if that's a realistic requirement.  Sounds like TN material?
 
Replication also complicates things somewhat...
 
My opinion is that it would be worthwhile to make xml:lang mandatory everywhere.  This would eliminate the need for users to agree on a default.  If the registry is used by more than one language community, it would be very difficult to establish and meaningfully enforce a default language.
 
Daniel
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:19 AM
To: Tom Bellwood; Luc Clement
Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element

My reading of the standard  suggested that it was optional, and that its omission indicated that the text was in the "default" language, not that the idea of default language is adequately described - is it default for the node, or default for the user?
 
It used to be that only one entry could use any given xml:lang value (including default), but that restriction has been eased in V3. As I see it, any number of entries could be coded to the default, so optional seems a valid way of indicating this.
 
I'd be in favour of drawing it into line with the treatment of xml:lang for names - the two are analogous, as I see it.
 
Tony Rogers
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Bellwood [mailto:bellwood@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thu 19/06/2003 9:12
To: Luc Clement
Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description element





Yes, the xml:lang is optional everywhere else but for descriptions.  I
agree we weren't consistent in its treatment.   I also seem to recall that
it was intentionally left as required here because descriptions are
intended to be human readable text and having the xml:lang can be important
for such uses.   We should consider if this line of reasoning is important
before making it optional I think.

Other opinions?  Someone with a different recollection than mine here?

Thanks,
Tom Bellwood       Phone:  (512) 838-9957 (external);   TL:  678/9957
(internal)
Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Specification TC
STSM - Emerging Technologies
IBM Corporation

"Luc Clement" <lclement@windows.microsoft.com> on 06/18/2003 01:39:47 PM

To:    <uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    [uddi-spec] Omission of use="optional" on the description
       element




Tom  / TC,

Please note that the http://uddi.org/schema/uddi_v3.xsd  schema omits
use="optional" on the description element. I think this is  an omission and
recommend we correct this definition as part of CR-002. The  current schema
is declared as:




<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>

        <xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">

              <xsd:simpleContent>

                     <xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">

                            <xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"/>

                     </xsd:extension>

              </xsd:simpleContent>

        </xsd:complexType>

... when I think we should have it declared as:



<xsd:elementname="description"type="uddi:description"final="restriction"/>

        <xsd:complexTypename="description"final="restriction">

              <xsd:simpleContent>

                     <xsd:extensionbase="uddi:validationTypeString255">

                            <xsd:attributeref="xml:lang"use="optional"/>

                     </xsd:extension>

              </xsd:simpleContent>

        </xsd:complexType>

For your consideration.

Luc

Luc Clément
Microsoft

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php


You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/members/leave_workgroup.php




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