XML Infoset is the abstract data model behind XML. There are 11 items
defined that make up XML 1.0. Only 6 are allowed in most WS protocols such
as SOAP. I haven't looked at WSDL and what they use.
It is far too abstract for us and also not relevant since it describes the
data model items, not specific data items. (example - element, attribute,
PI, comment, namespace etc.)
What would be a great idea is to study the abstract model for WS-Security
and WS-Policy to see what items they work with. I feel this abstraction is
where the RA can meet the protocols halfway.
Duane
On 10/11/06 2:32 PM, "Jeffrey A. Estefan" <>
wrote:
> RA Team,
>
> I heard a lot of talk this morning about the potential to reuse what
> industry has developed in terms of SOA-implementation standards, for example
> WSDL and the WSDL data model (1.x, 2.0, or otherwise) as a possible means
> to model the Service Description (SD) of the RA. Isn't that an XML Infoset?
> Frankly, I think that is a bad idea. What industry is lacking is a
> technology inert reference architecture. We all know SOA is not new and
> that XML-based Web services have been buzzing for the past few years. In
> the not too distant past, we had OMG CORBA IDL and Microsoft IDL as an
> example of an implementation language neutral service description model.
> Today, XML-based WSDL is arguable the most popular implementation-language
> neutral way to document service descriptions/service contracts, but who
> knows what's going to take its place tomorrow. We should just as easily be
> able to map CORBA IDL or Microsoft IDL SD onto our RA SD as we can a W3C
> WSDL SD or a Java Interface SD.
>
> The RM provides the basic skeletal structure for us and we should start our
> modeling activities from the RM as a basis and start putting some "meat on
> the bones." After a first iteration, we should conduct a test to see if, to
> first order, we can map a set of technology-specific SDs such as WSDL, IDL,
> Java Interface, etc. onto our SD model for V&V purposes. If we do not do
> this, there is little likelihood that the RA spec that we do finally come up
> with will actually get adopted and used by the stakeholder community we are
> targeting for the RA.
>
> Incidentally, we need to start by defining the static model for the SD and
> not a dynamic model. The dynamic aspect on use of the SD will come later
> when we model interaction.
>
> My two cents...
>
> - Jeff E.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
******************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee*
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com *
******************************************************
