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

Title: Message

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:] 
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2003 
  09:54
To: 'Rogers, Tony'; 'Tom Bellwood'; 'Luc 
  Clement'
Cc: 
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:] 
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:19 
    AM
To: Tom Bellwood; Luc Clement
Cc: 
    
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:] 
Sent: Thu 19/06/2003 9:12 
      
To: Luc Clement 
Cc:  
      
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" 
      <> on 06/18/2003 01:39:47 
      PM

To:    
      <>
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 Cl幦ent
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