Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi. I was also asking about this a while back in a slightly more general way, specifcally, has there been any work done on developing a standard validation failure (and/or warning) format? My understanding is that while I'm sure various people have tackled this problem, it hasn't made it into a public standard yet. All seriousness aside, this does remind me of a thread that came up on XML dev about must-understand codes. Here's a link to the initial post, and I'm pasting in a compilation of the thread below: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200504/msg00000.html <pre> Display all headersDate: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:21:05 +0100 From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...> Reply-To: sean.mcgrath@p... Organization: Propylon To: xml-dev@l... Subject: REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?) Whatever about the pros and cons of REST versus SOAP, I think it is abundantly clear that the mustUnderstand model [1] is a key concept in developing loosely coupled systems that can evolve independently. I would like to suggest that the mustUnderstand model is sufficiently important that it should be added to the xml namespace alongside xml:space and xml:lang. I'm a big fan of conceptualising XML message exchange in terms of Speech Acts[2]. To make the most of the power of this abstraction, I think it is necessary to extend the coarse boolean mustUnderstand model into a more fine grained model that matches the way speech acts are used in the real world. I would like to suggest that xml:mustUnderstand be an enumeration with a number of positive integer values, the semantics of which, should be part of the specification. I can think of five. Additions/comments on these welcome: xml:mustUnderstand="0" - It is permissable for the recipient to not understand the message fragment. No specific directions about the speech act semantics in this case. xml:mustUnderstand="1" - The message fragment must be understood, otherwise the conversation must fail. xml:mustUnderstand="2" - reciever must claim to understand, even if it does not. The sender should have not be able to tell whether or not the receiver really understands or is simply claiming to understand. This is particularly useful in the service industries. xml:mustUnderstand="3" - receiver may at first issue one or more failure responses indicating that it does not understand the message fragment. Then, without any action from the sender other than retries, the receiver begins to understand the message fragment. This has many applications in the political arena. xml:mustUnderstand="4" - reciever may claim to understand the message fragment one or more times and then begin issuing failure responses. The failure responses should indicate that the message was never understood and assert that the receivers behavior has been consistent in this regard all along. This has many applications in the media and in academia. xml:mustUnderstand="5" - reciever may claim not to understand but, unknown to the sender, may act upon the message fragment. This has many applications in e-commerce. Thoughts? Sean seanmcgrath.blogspot.com [1] http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2004/07/27/dare%20versioning%20extensi bility%20article%20comparison [2] http://www.manageability.org/blog/stuff/the-restfulness-of-speech-acts/v iew -------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:54:44 +0100 From: Peter Rodgers <pjr@1...> To: sean.mcgrath@p... Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?) You forgot: xml:mustUnderstand="6" - reciever must understand each and every meaning of the message both explicit and by inference from supporting metadata for example, the timestamp of the message. ------------------------- From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...> To: "'Peter Rodgers'" <pjr@1...>, <sean.mcgrath@p...> Cc: <xml-dev@l...> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:11:18 +0100 Subject: RE: REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?) Not to mention xml:mustUnderstand="7": receiver may misunderstand. This is also very common in eCommerce. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ --------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:31:30 -0500 From: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@g...> Reply-To: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@g...> To: sean.mcgrath@p... Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?) Excellent, an enumeration is the right way to go with this. The advantage is that you can then dip into negative numbers: xml:mustUnderstand="-1" - The recipient MUST NOT understand the message fragment. xml:mustUnderstand="-2" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret the message fragment. xml:mustUnderstand="-3" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret part of the message while generating error messages that include ad hominem attacks on the author of the message fragment. xml:mustUnderstand="-5" - The recipient MUST willfully misinterpret part of the message in a libelous manner while claiming to have invented the format and claiming you are using it wrong. -joe ----------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:41:34 -0500 From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> Reply-To: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...> Subject: Re: REST, SOAP, Speech Acts and the mustUnderstand model of SOA communications (was: Re: What Does SOAP/WS Do that A REST System Can't?) xml:mustUnderstand="sqrt(-1)" - The recipient is free to imagine that it understands the message fragment. .:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.: ||:. Nathan Young Cisco.com->Interface Development A: ncy1717 E: natyoung@c... > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...] > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:37 AM > To: XML Developers List > Subject: A Taxonomy of Deviance? > > Hi all, > > there have been discussions previously here and elsewhere about such > notions as "feasibly valid". I'm working on a discussion of the ways > in which processors that know an XML grammar (be it XML Schema, > RelaxNG, etc. it doesn't matter) and use it for a specific task can > be resilient to errors in various manners and to various degrees. > > I'm finding it difficult however to come up with a way of measuring > their resilience, and was wondering if anyone had come up with a > classification for grammar deviations and a metric for just how > deviant an instance (or subtree) is. Any thoughts or > suggestions there? > > -- > Robin Berjon > Senior Research Scientist > Expway, http://expway.com/ > [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
