[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of View_definition_context
On Tim’s last concern about access to and standardization of the RDL, isn’t that why we’re talking on an OASIS exploder?
The benefit of OASIS is that its standards are free and on the Web. Isn’t that, by definition, a better approach than making ISO standards out of string values?
Cheers, DP
-----Original Message-----
I don't necessarily disagree.
However, playing the role of a devil's advocate (occaisonally), I would suggest that this approach has a number of possible flaws;
0. the solution below is potentially ambiguous since the same information is present in more than 1 place (redudancy?) & people tend to use the most simple approach when faced with simple/complex route to the same answer. (e.g. people may just read the attr vals instead of going to the RDL). Placing the values in the VDC adds no value if you still have to traverse the RDL to achieve the same.
1. the assumption is that all systems are capable of reasoning through/over an RDL (to identify class super types)
2. the assumption that everyone has access to the same RDL, RDL version etc.,
Most of which can be overcome in various ways within the context of exchange partners/scenarios and more software. Though how do we ensure each user's software navigates the RDL in the same way - or perhaps these would be free utilities provided by the RDL manager?
In fact, all other things aside, I think the atttribute classification is the best solution since it clearly identifies both the external_class and the attribute being classified. Using this method is unambiguous without the need (or s/w) to be able to traverse across a RDL (in addition to the lookup). However, I'd remove the values from the VDC instance for the same reasons stated above.
Of separate, wider concern I think, is that what used to be part of the AP standard is now shifting to the realm of an RDL (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with), but which raises it's own questions about how the RDL is standardised and managed. Again this can be overcome within the context of exchange partners, but raises the doubt of accuracy across distributed systems that may not have access to the same RDL, or how the evolving nature of an RDL is to be reconciled with the need for Long Term Data Retention/Archiving for future use of exchange files. I guess when the RDL is complete it will also be archived with the exchange files, along with all the software since owl may not be still around in 20 years time.
kind regards, Tim
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]