[graap-wg] Fw: Alternative Approach to Templates and Constraints

[Heiko Ludwig]

Dear GRAAP members,

Karl and I had some email discussion since the Wednesday phone call to 
resolve the template issue. 

We agreed that both of our more complex proposals are not well enough 
throught through at the moment and it would be best to stick to a minimal 
solution, going only slightly beyond what we have in the 1 comments round 
draft:

- A template contains an offer prototype and the creation contraints.
- Creation constrains contain a set of items, each of which 
        -- has a location as an XPath
        -- may have a simpleRestriction (as we had it) or  a complex type 
restriction ( because it's easy) or any#other content to be interpreted as 
constraint in its domain.

This gives us a good standard template functionality and enough space for 
experimental approaches to templates sitting on top of this standard and 
potentially being included in the next revision of WS-Agreement. 
Furthermore, the proposal is easy to implement. 

If you have comments on this speak up now. I will start changing the 
schema and text of the spec correspondingly next week.

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160,  mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/


----- Forwarded by Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM on 07/22/2005 10:29 AM -----

Karl Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com> 
07/21/2005 11:28 PM

To
Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
cc

Subject
Re: Alternative Approach to Templates and Constraints






OK.  I also wonder if some experiments might be better off in a separate
RP from template, but I think the extension idea below is reasonable
for "fine tuning" of the model in some domains.

Should the Location be fixed to XPath or handled via extensions,
e.g. make the normative idiom something like

  <wsag:Item>
     <wsag:Location>
        <wsagext:XPath>/some/path/string</wsagext:XPath>
     </Location>

? (I made it wsagext so it could go in an any##other defined in the
wsag namespace.)

karl



On Jul 21, Heiko Ludwig modulated:
...
> - We keep the existing model of pointers in XPath. Current content is
> default.
> - Constraint in:
>         1. simpleRestriction, the way we have now. that's our minimum.
>         2. complexType, because it is the same than simpleRestrictions
> and one can identify the root
>         any#other for experimenting.
> 
> As for the standard, 1 and 2 only apply to existing locations. The
> location can be interpreted differently otherwise.
> 
> This way we can keep our proven model, don't have much extension and
> implementations can be easily adapted. We also understand the limits.
> With the additional any#other we are open for whatever comes to our
> minds.
> 
> I hope we can agree on this.
> 
> Heiko

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20050722/4ba488ea/attachment.html