Title: Message
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:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003
1:47 AM
To:
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 -----
From:
Von
Riegen, Claus
To: 'Daniel Feygin' ; 'Rogers, Tony'
; 'Tom
Bellwood' ; 'Luc Clement'
Cc:
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:]
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 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
