RE: [cam-comment] Sorry for missing the party so far

[martin.me.roberts@bt.com]

David,
  Another comment and/or question.

  How does the //BusinessUseContext/Rules/default context work?

	Does it apply in every case where there is no overide is defined
within a context sensitive section of the rules? Or does it only apply
when no context flag are pssed in?

	This makes a difference for how you would construct a usage
statement.

	I have files that worked as follows:

		Default file for project / business process level
defaults
		Message level file which only varies when specific
fields usage is different.

	This means that a merger of the project and message gives me the
result.  This would mean a default section represented by the default
and a context area with just those parts where variations occur at a
message level.

Martin Roberts 
xml designer, 
BTexact Technologies 
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
pp 16 Floor 5, Orion Building, Adastral Park, Martlesham, Ipswich IP5
3RE, UK 
	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British
Telecommunications plc 
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ 
	Registered in England no. 1800000 
	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message
in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or
address above) immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] 
Sent: 12 March 2003 23:00
To: Roberts,MME,Martin,DEJC R; CAM OASIS
Cc: cam-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [cam-comment] Sorry for missing the party so far


Martin,

We do have a few gals as well (yeah I know the industry is wildly too
macho a profession!).

In answer to the question on the BP and assembly - the approach intended
is that you have separate assembly templates for each step of the BP.
That way you can more easily re-use those step centric templates across
BPs.

However - as you suggest - you could package them all together under a
'master' template - and include in the sub-assembly  for the specific
step - based on the value of a context variable.

I would say the preferred approach is separate templates.  As you note -
this then allows the BP script to reference each 
template by UID reference or URL directly.

Is there more than that - or is that sufficient here?

Thanks, DW. ======================================================
Message text written by INTERNET:martin.me.roberts@bt.com
> 
Gents, 
        I seem to have missed the subsrciption to the CAM membership and
I apologise as it was an oversight on my part.  I am intending to revise
my example of the assembly I provided before to conform to the new doc.

        However, I have a question. 

        Are you intending there to be one Assembly for a whole set of
documents that are used in a Business Process? 

        If so I think it would be good to have a formal way of linking
these in the BPSS or any other document.  For example you have used
as:choiceID against a Structure, I wonder if for that level we need to
have StractureName which could be formally mentioned in the referncing
document?

Martin Roberts
xml designer,
BTexact Technologies
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785
<http://clickdial.bt.co.uk/clickdial?001609785.cld> clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834 
<