Hi Tim,
Two comments…
In the RDL you don’t need class of
class to solve this problem, subclassing will work.
If we’re going to assume no access
to the RDL server is a concern, we might as well stop now. That said, the file
can still parse… URIs are after all just text strings.
Cheers,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner
[mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 31 January 2005 15:29
To: 'David Price'; 'Rob
Bodington'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Örjan Falk'; 'Jonas Rosén';
'Tonning Leif'; 'Magnus Färneland'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Issues
with identification and classification
Didn't
we discuss this issue of ambiguity once before?
I can
see both points & both have some (practical) observations;
- 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).
- 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.
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Price
[mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
Sent: 31 January 2005 07:39
To: 'Rob Bodington';
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Örjan Falk'; 'Jonas Rosén';
'Tonning, Leif'; 'Magnus Färneland'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Issues
with identification and classification
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