[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with idandname issue
Dave, But the users need not see the GUID when working with a modelling tool, do they? I think what Sacha and Dale suggest is that both 'ID' and 'name' attributes still be there but only the ID is used for referencing. - serm ----- Original Message ----- From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info> To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>; "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov> Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with idandname issue > Dale, > > I just realized there's another little gotcha here. > > I kinda assumed in my build out that GUID is illustrative - and I've just > been putting in a shorter unique ID value locally. Obviously if you > are referencing say a CPA - then GUID is a good idea - however > they are extremely user unfriendly (and large!) - so often you just need a > simple short - object counter # say, or similar - that just saves using > the text name as the cross-ref'. > > Similarly - just to re-interate - what I'm doing is very visual facing - > so having both the name text and the ID value in the schema works > for me - so the user can see the text whenever they need to > sanity check it - instead of having to hunt the XML instance to > find it... > > Horses for courses! > > Thanks, DW. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> > To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "Boonserm (Serm) > Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov> > Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 11:36 AM > Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with > idandname issue > > > Hi, > > I take Sacha's (and Serm's) point to be that: > > For the purpose of reference from one element to some other element, one > GUIDREF to the referenced element's @nameId GUID value is sufficent to > accomplish referential uniqueness in BPSS. > > I hope that is accurate; anyway, the point seems to be true. > > Because chasing the reference will also allow finding the @name string > value, it is not necessary to store that value in some attribute of the > element we are referring from. The repetition of the value is prone to > error during edits when only the original element's @name string value > is changed. The convenience of not needing to chase the reference to > find the string value probably does not outweigh the risk of error (and > pain of looking for back references whenever the @name string value gets > changed). > > So I agree with Sacha and Serm on the convention of using the GUIDREF > values for reference. > > References from CPA, however, are not numerous, and so I think the > repetition there can be allowed. > > The overhead of loading the BPSS instance, parsing, and then chasing > references to get the @name value would then be more sizable. And even > if the BPSS instance changes, I think the CPA values should stay as > agreed upon so that the Message Header does not have to be changed... > > Dale Moberg > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:28 AM > To: Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou > Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with > idandname issue > Importance: Low > > > Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou wrote: > > >I agree with Sacha that there should be only one reference. I was > >struggled with that redundancy too. I think the flexibility and > >redundancy should be the tool functionality (like what david explain > >with visual script). It need not be captured in the schema. > > > > > mm1: Thank you Serm and Sacha for the inputs, as this adds to the > discussion we had in Monday's call. And too, we should keep in mind not > > to map to specific product tool functionality which is outside of the > scope. > > >- serm > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info> > >To: "Sacha Schlegel" <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li> > >Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > >Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:28 PM > >Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing with > idand > >name issue > > > > > > > > > >>Sacha, > >> > >>Looks good. The only reason I guess for the redundancy in the fromFoo > > >>and fromFooID is that it saves the lookup - and makes the human > >>readability easier. I'm not complaining at that! > >> > >>On the name front you may have two partners in a collaboration - and > >>you send each of them "Parts Order Confirm" but for one you > >>use "schema-P1.xsd" and the other "schema-P1a.xsd". It's > >>nice to have the flexiblity - even if you would discourage > >>the practice. It's also nice from the point of view of > >>having libraries of different pre-built document definitions, > >>that you drag and drop in - and then maybe edit afterwards - > >>and they can have same names while you figure out those > >>edits. > >> > >>DW. > >> > >>Quoting Sacha Schlegel <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi David > >>> > >>>On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 01:45, David RR Webber wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Sacha, > >>>> > >>>>The way I've implemented this in VisualScript models is to use them > >>>>as cross-referencing - assuming the name is the human friendly > >>>>detail, and the ID is the shorthand notation for cross-referencing. > >>>> > >>>>So as you add business documents to your BPSS model > >>>>then go over and start to add business steps - those documents show > >>>>up as choices for the user to select > >>>>in the step. Display the names as part of the choices, > >>>>and then key off the IDs for the software. > >>>> > >>>>You can auto-generate IDs for the user if you do > >>>>not want them to have to mess with those. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Makes sense so far. > >>> > >>>Its purely an XML style, I guess. No doubt the user should not deal > >>>with IDs. Let me explain in an example: > >>> > >>><Sample> > >>> <Foo name="MyFoo" ID="foo_id"/> > >>> <Bar name="MyBar" ID="bar_id" fromFoo="ABC" fromFooID="foo_id"/> > >>></Sample> > >>> > >>>I do not understand why Bar must have fromFoo AND fromFOOID. One is > >>>redundant, I think. One is enough and the better one is fromFooID, > >>>IMO. Using globally unique ID's is even better. > >>> > >>>If you have to present to the user what Bar references, then you can > >>>get the name of Foo my searching for the ID of Foo. I think XML > >>>Parsers and/or XPath treat IDs specially for validation and for > >>>easy/quick search (actually not sure about this). Not a XML parser > >>>handles GUID similarly to ID. I think it is rather XML style or there > > >>>are good reasons why to use both. > >>> > >>>I see the need to make sure that ID's and names dont clash when > >>>importing/including other data or even that they have to be globally > >>>unique and hence using GUID/GUIDREF. You then even can have something > > >>>like MD5 Checksums associated with XML elements with GUID so you > >>>could check the integrity of an element by comparing the checksum... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>It also allows you to have the same business document > >>>>name - but say different schema or CAM templates > >>>>associated with it - and the software is able to distinguish the > >>>>references OK. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Sorry I dont get this one. Might be a different story. Having a XML > >>>instance which is valid for different schemas? Never thought of > >>>that... > >>> > >>>Thanks > >>> > >>>Sacha > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Does this make sense? > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, DW. > >>>> > >>>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>>From: "Sacha Schlegel" <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li> > >>>>To: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org> > >>>>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:19 AM > >>>>Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS 1.01 XML Schema element referencing > with > >>>> > >>>> > >>>idand > >>> > >>> > >>>>name issue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hi bp group > >>>>> > >>>>>OK I have a sample of the name and ID issue: > >>>>> > >>>>><ProcessSpecification ...> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> <BusinessDocument name="ABC" nameID="ABC_ID"> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> ... > >>>>> <BusinessTransaction name="Trans1" nameID="Trans1_ID"> > >>>>> <RequestingBusinessActivity name="ReqBizA" nameID="ReqBizA_ID" > >>>>> > >>>>> > >...> > > > > > >>>>> <!-- here the BusinessDocument gets referenced --> > >>>>> <!-----------------------------------------------> > >>>>> <DocumentEnvelope businessDocument="ABC" > >>>>>businessDocumentIDREF="ABC_ID" .../> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> </RequestingBusinessAcitivty> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> </BusinessTransaction> > >>>>> ... > >>>>></ProcessSpecification> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I did not read up on any "How to engineer XML documents", or UBL's > >>>>>"Rules how to write an XML Schema" ... > >>>>> > >>>>>Kind regards > >>>>> > >>>>>Sacha > >>>>> > >>>>>On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 21:49, Sacha Schlegel wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Hi bp group > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Studing the BPSS XML Schema from the "ebXML Business Process > >>>>>>Specification Version 1.01" I came across the following issue: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Whenever an element X references another element Y there is a) the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>name > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>(required) of element Y AND b) the ID (optional) of element Y > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >given as > > > > > >>>>>>an attribute of the X element. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sample from 1.01 Appendix A: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>....actually the sample bpss of 1.01 does not use ID's at all but > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >only > > > > > >>>>>>names... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Looking at the 1.1 BPSS still the name attribute and the ID > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >attribute > > > > > >>>>>>are in elements. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>To me, only the ID attribute makes sense as with the ID I can get > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >to > > > > > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>name of the element. Or even having only one, the ID or the name. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>Having > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>both, the name AND ID, this invites to have logically invalid BPSS > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >XML > > > > > >>>>>>instance documents. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>If this issue has been addressed in a post 1.01 version then > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >please > > > > > >>>>>>ignore this email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Kind regards. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sacha > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>-- > >>>>>------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>Sacha Schlegel > >>>>>------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia > >>>>>sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li > >>>>>public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg > >>>>>------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>!DSPAM:3fbe4f59101291758211259! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>------------------------------------------------ > >>>Sacha Schlegel > >>>------------------------------------------------ > >>>4 Warwick Str, 6102 St. James, Perth, Australia > >>>sacha@schlegel.li www.schlegel.li > >>>public key: www.schlegel.li/sacha.gpg > >>>------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>http://drrw.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]