Hello Sean,
My only real point was that I think you (or
if not you, the people making implementation decisions within your
organization) actually should care. Part 21 is an ISO STEP-only specification
that nobody outside that community knows or uses. XML (e.g. Part 28) is clearly
a much more widespread technology. Therefore, my enthusiasm for the OASIS
XML-based standards for PLCS.
Cheers,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK)
[mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 11 June 2004 12:55
To: David Price;
plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question
to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
I'm not sure that I care whether we
implement in part 21 or part 28. I do care that I don't care - we should be
able to implement in either, and that there is a defined, lossless translation
between the two. In part, this is to provide interoperability with existing
interfaces.
I also require that any implementation of
STEP in part 28 be interoperable at that level with any other implementation.
That is, I should not have to reconfigure my XML translator according to
AP, DEX or exchange partner.
I also think that it is more urgent to have a standard based
on XML than one based on part 21, if only because XML has already raised too
many expectations that it will solve the data exchange problem, and so is
significantly easier to market at the present.
Sean
Barker
ATC Filton
0117 302 8184
-----Original Message-----
From: David Price
[mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
Sent: 09 June 2004 16:32
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question
to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
*** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside
your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
|
Hi Tim and Tim,
I was the author of the offending email so
want to comment.
I've never been to a PLCS consortium
meeting so don't know what was debated or when. However, what I said is the
obvious, logical conclusion of the actions taken wrt standardizing PLCS for
industrial use. I would be surprised, but not shocked, if people don't realize
this.
1 OASIS is a body for making XML-based
industrial standards.
2 The PLCS consortium members have
reformed as the OASIS PLCS TC.
3 That TC plans on publishing standards
with the OASIS "seal of approval".
4 Therefore, an XML-based PLCS standard is
what will be published and is what the members expect industry to use.
If there's an error in my logic, please
point it out.
I hope you aren't suggesting that the
OASIS PLCS TC was formed to publish EXPRESS-based standards and push Part 21
implementations. If that's the case, all I can say is that I believe that's a
mistake of colossal proportions wrt widespread take-up of PLCS.
Cheers,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim [mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net]
Sent: 08 June 2004 21:42
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Tim King'
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question
to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
I, for one, was rather alarmed by the
impression that the consortium had already made such a decision; apparantly
with little debate!
I fully agree with your latter statement!
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dunford
[mailto:esukpc15@gotadsl.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2004 15:03
To: 'Tim King';
plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question
to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
Although I have not been much
involved of late I agree with Tim that the proposed wording could be
improved. The aim is to enable XML, not to kill off EXPRESS.
John Dunford,
Eurostep Limited,
25, Chaucer Road, BATH BA2 4QX, UK
Tel: +44 1225 789347
Mobile: +44 0797 491 8202
www.eurostep.com
www.share-a-space.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tim King
[mailto:tmk@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2004 09:59
To: 'plcs@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
It has
been suggested that the quote at point 6 below:
"The
PLCS consortium is planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML Schema through
OASIS, so they don t expect implementations to be EXPRESS-based."
is not an
agreed OASIS PLCS TC position in respect of not using EXPRESS-based
implementations. Certainly, I believe that the second half of the
sentence is not a logical sequitur of the first. I have made this second
point to the receipients of the original message.
As ever,
Tim.
*************************************************************************
*
* Dr. Timothy M. KING
CEng MIMechE PhD DIC ACGI
* Executive Consultant, Enterprise
Integration Technologies
* LSC Group, Concept House,
Victoria Road, TAMWORTH, UK - B79 7HL
* Switchboard:
+44-1827-708000 Fax: +44-1827-708500
* Direct telephone:
+44-1827-708535 (with VoiceMail)
* Mobile telephone: +44-7813-131779
* e-mail: tmk@lsc.co.uk
Internet: http://www.lsc.co.uk/
*
*************************************************************************
At 04:39
PM 12/2/2003 +0000, David Price wrote:
>Hello
WG3 and WG12,
>
>
>
>We ve been working with the
AP233 and AP239 teams on Part 28 Edition 2 and
XML Schema. Part 28 E2 introduces a
configuration language allowing the
production of an XML schema to be
tailored for an EXPRESS schema. The
tailoring can happen at the global,
entity and/or attribute level. The
issue that has been raised during
the discussions with AP233 and AP239 is
if, or how, this capability should
be used.
>
>
>
>I m trying to gather business
requirements and technical requirements in
this area. If you have requirements
or usage scenarios in this area, I d
appreciate hearing about them.
>
>
>
>So far, what I ve heard from
these two teams (and relayed to the Part 28
team today) is the following:
>
>
>
>1) A single configuration to
produce a default data exchange XML Schema
for both (or all?) APs is required.
Some have said they want WG3/SC4 to
agree and mandate a single
configuration for AP implementation.
>
>2) Exactly what the XML
document looks like is not that important as a
high level, model based API will be
used.
>
>3) The XML schema elements
should be recognizable as being derived from
the EXPRESS schema, but trying to
reflect the EXPRESS structure in XML is
less important than simplicity and
consistency.
>
>4) Interoperability, and
therefore the same configuration, is a high
priority for AP233, AP239 and PDM
capabilities.
>
>5) The first AP233 and AP239
implementations will be based on the ARM, not
the AIM. This may continue to be
true for all implementations as well.
>
>6) The PLCS consortium is
planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML Schema
through OASIS, so they don t expect
implementations to be EXPRESS-based.
>
>
>
>Do other AP teams share these
requirements? I agree they are not all
completely consistent (ARM v. AIM),
but requirements seldom are. If your
requirements are different, in what
way?
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>David
>
>
>
>Phone +44 20 7704 0499
>
>Mobile +44 7788 561308
>
>8 Highbury Place, Flat 5
>
>London N5 1QZ
>
>
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY
MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may
be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any
action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this
message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England
& Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport,
Plymouth, PL1 4SG
******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ********************************************************************
|
|