[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [office] Live meeting?
Hi Sorry to send this to the whole group but Michael's out until the 13th. Did we confirm a live meeting in Santa Clara on Feb 17 and 18? If so, do we have any other details? Again, sorry for the spam Thanks Phil Boutros VP, Technology Stellent pboutros@stellent.com -----Original Message----- From: Paul Grosso [mailto:pgrosso@arbortext.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:26 PM To: OASIS Open Office TC Subject: RE: [office] Clarification re: DSDL and W3C Schema I mostly disagree with John and Sean. I am not a RELAX-NG expert, but from what I know and have heard, RELAX-NG should be able to describe everything we would want to say. And it should be feasible (there are those with such experience) to make clean, reasonable, automated conversions from RELAX-NG into the closest possible analogues in XSD and DTDs. I very much think we want (1) machine readable and processable definitions of our language and (2) automatic conversions from our working language to the others. I support the decision I thought we already took to use RELAX-NG as the language with which we will define our application and to plan to provide automatic translations to close-as-possible XSDs and DTDs. paul At 21:10 2003 01 08 +0000, Sean McGrath wrote: >I agree with John. There is a lot to be said for making the normative >expression of the constraints independent of schema-language du-jour. >Some BNF-ish notation along with narrative text is one possibilty. This >will of course be imperfect, true expression of the specification can >only be seen through running code. However, I think this bears >consideration as putting one particular schema language "on top" to >generate the others mechanically risks: > >1) creating an impression that one particular schema language is >superior to the others (lets not start that debate!) > >2) mechanically generated schemas will always be yucky compared to hand >crafted ones - creating second class citizens of the generated >notations. > >regards, >Sean McGrath >http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com > > >At 21:04 08/01/2003 +0000, John Chelsom wrote: >>One reflection on the DTD/Relax/W3C Schema debate: >> >>We seem to be assuming that we will need to perform an automated (and >>probably imperfect) transformation from a normative syntax into others >>that people may want to use in their own implementations. We could, of >>course, use any notation we like for the normative expression of the >>specification, so long as it unambiguously defines the XML structures >>in the open office format. We could then publish implementations as >>DTD/Relax/W3C Schema,etc with comments where necessary on how each >>syntax does (or does not) support what we have defined. >> >>As far as I can see there is no necessity to define an automated >>transformation from our specification to any given format. Our problem >>is >>(almost) the same one that has been faced by activities such as UBL and HL7 >>(for those of you interested in a far bigger manifestation of the problem in >>the healthcare domain). The problem is that XML schema languages (I think >>all of them, but I someone may want to correct me) are not rich enough to >>specify the logical information models required in those specifications. >> >>The only thing that we definitely need to do is make sure our >>specification is complete and unambiguous in itself. We can then add >>examples of syntax-specific implementations to help people implement >>their own applications, but these aren't normative and (almost >>certainly) won't be generated 100% automtically from the specification >>itself. >> >>Regards, >>John >> >>*********************************************** >>CSW Group Ltd >>4240 Nash Court >>Oxford Business Park South >>Oxford >>OX4 2RU >>Tel: +44/0 1865 337400 Fax: +44/0 1865 337433 >>Web: http://www.csw.co.uk >> >>Delivering value to our customers by deploying innovative, web-based, >>products and solutions for the integration of processes, data and >>knowledge >>*********************************************** >>CSW's XML Summer School 27th - 31st July 2003 >>Wadham College, Oxford >>Further information: http://www.xmlsummerschool.com >>*********************************************** >>Legal Disclaimer: http://www.csw.co.uk/disclaimer.htm >>*********************************************** > >http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC