|
Rob/Dave
Didn't
we discuss this issue of ambiguity once before?
I can
see both points & both have some
(practical) observations;
In
Rob's version
- using classification of classification is logically fine,
but how many orders of classification are we going to allow?
-
wasn't this classification of concepts one of the reasons for having an RDL in
the first place?
-
using classification of classification keeps the parsability with the P21/P28
file should an RDL not be available (for whatever reason)
- we assume that the classification of another
class always refers to the target External_class.name (& not to
External_class.id, or External_class.description).
In
Dave's version
-
moving the classification to the RDL also makes sense & replaces the
overhead from translators in reliance upon the RDL service
-
however, if for any reason the RDL service is unavailable, the file will not be
parseable (as it will be inherently ambiguous) - which ought to be of
practicable concern.
Regards,
Tim
NB - I
presume that the '/IGNORE' on instance #6 of Rob's diagrams should be a
$
NNB -
Most translators'
default behaviour, given an attribute value of $, is that there was no data
provided(!) so all this behaviour needs to be specifically coded & as
generic as possible.
Rob,
I think the
fundamental approach here has a problem. Whether part_code is a kind of
name or kind of identifier is schema-level information, not data exchange
level information. Therefore, that statement has to be made within the RDL
itself, not in the exchange file. How could a Web service present the possible
types of names for something if that statement isn't in the
RDL?
Cheers,
David
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 31 January 2005 07:28
To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Örjan Falk; Jonas Rosén; Tonning,
Leif; Magnus Färneland
Subject: [plcs-dex] Issues with
identification and classification
Hi
During the development
of PLCS translators we have identified a couple of issues with the way in
which we use classification of attribute and with the use of "role" in
identification.
I have documented what
the issues are in the attached document and proposed a
solution.
Are the proposals
acceptable to everyone?
If so, we will need to
modify the relevant capabilities.
Regards
Rob
-------------------------------------------
Rob
Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email:
Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone:
+44 (0)1454 270030
Mobile: +44
(0)7796 176 401
Fax: +44 (0)1454 270031
|