Re: [Fwd: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema elementreferencingwith id and name issue]

[Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>]

Hi 

Sorry for all the confusion. 

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 02:03, Monica J. Martin wrote:
> Dale Moberg wrote:
> 
> >Sacha's example maybe shows why we should try to use the GUID/GUIDREF
> >technique consistently.
> >
> >I had not noticed that the technique had not been employed consistently.
> >
> >Monica, should this be an Issue, rather than a topic? 
> >
> mm1: I think if you look at v.1.1 this has been consistently applied for 
> the BusinessDocument and DocumentEnvelope, and the use of GUID and 
> GUIDREF.  Sacha, are you trying to ask for some enforcement other than 
> the use of the GUID/GUIDREF techniques between the BusinessDocument and 
> DocumentEnvelope? Thanks.

Currently I am (re)implementing a bpss 1.01 XML execution engine and
have taken the negotiation bpss as my example bpss (no forks, no joins).

I just got suspicious why there are two attributes (once with the name
and once with the ID) in an element to reference another element. Having
two attributes to reference or name another element seemed to me like
having one too much. That was the original issue I had.

And according to Martin.Me.Roberts there are reasons for that. I post
his comment here as that did not go to the list:

-----------------------martin.me.roberts----------------------
Sacha,
        I have not looked at the published schema but I worked on the
Schema for 1.1.  The version I have follows the BPSS 1.05 form which was
not to use inherited parts such as BusinessActivity in the schema.

        One of may major concerns about the way 1.1 was handled was that
no adequate technical review of the schema was done and neither JJ or
myself ever got asked to change it or as far as I know no comments were
addressed before publication.

        You point about ID and names is a valid one, which would have
been addressed in any sensible review.  I was purely following the BPSS
1.05 method.  What we have found with the use of tools such as
Bindstudio is that having ID is a real pain as it make editing the
document out side of the tool almost impossible.  Names are esier for us
humans to cope with, ID are better for automatic checking.  My respnse
then is that we should have supported an either one or both option which
is not possible to express in XSD speak

Martin Roberts 
xml designer, 
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
-----------------------martin.me.roberts----------------------


Kind regards.

Sacha


PS: Sample in case I was unclear:

<DocumentEnvelope businessDocument="ABC"
businessDocumentIDREF="ABC_ID" .../>

businessDocument and businessDocumentIDRef are pointing to the same
other element.

> 
> "In BPSS XML Schema 1.01 the data type of the attribute businessDocument of the element DocumentEnvelope is "simply" a
> xsd:string, which can have any value. The businessDocumentIDRef on the other hand is a xsd:IDREF data type and "must" point to a xsd:ID attribute within the XML document. An attribute of type xsd:IDREF allows the parser to validate if the value given in businessDocumentIDRef is available within the XML document. The parser has no idea about businessDocument as it is "just" a string and that will always be valid."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !DSPAM:3fbd00aa276121201369591!
-- 
------------------------------------------------
Sacha                                   Schlegel
------------------------------------------------
4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth,  Australia
sacha@schlegel.li                www.schlegel.li
public key:            www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg
------------------------------------------------