RE: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues

[Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@schemantix.com>]

For clarification: what I meant by point 7 was that XSD has specific names
for various constructs ("element", "complexType", etc.), so we might try to
align on these ("addElement", "addComplexType", etc.). Not a big issue but
the naming in the context rules dialect doesn't strike me as 100% solid, so
this might help.

BTW: I'd like to break up the individual threads tomorrow and start into the
meat of the discussion, so please send any remaining suggestions for topics
today! I can only guess by the lack of much feedback that my list was very
comprehensive... :-)

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:43 AM
> To: Matthew Gertner
> Cc: 'ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: Re: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues
> 
> 
> 8) Assuming that we decide to start from the Vienna document, are we
> going to concentrate solely/mainly in Context rules (as I 
> believe we decided
> at our last meeting, but I'm not 100% sure), or are we going 
> to look at
> the Assembly rules too?
> 
> 9) Assuming that we decide to start from the Vienna document, 
> what is the
> list of features in the Context rules that people think are broken?
> 
> <Aside>  I don't understand question 1 in point (7) below.
> 
> Question 1: "should we align the names of the
> context tags so they match the tags in the schema language?"
> 
> I don't understand what tags in the schema language are to be matched.
> 
> </Aside>
> 
> Matthew Gertner wrote:
> 
> > Welcome to the context methodology list. I'd like to kick 
> off discussion by
> > establishing a list of issues that need resolution in order 
> to finalize the
> > specification. I'd like to stick to gathering issues for a 
> few days before
> > starting discussion on these. So unless someone objects, I 
> would suggest
> > that we reserve this thread for suggestions of new issues, 
> rather than
> > discussion on the issues themselves. I'll split all of the 
> retained issues
> > into separate threads to kickoff discussion towards the end 
> of next week.
> > 
> > 1) Do we consider the "Document Assembly and Context Rules" 
> document from
> > Vienna (v1.04) to be the starting point for our work, which 
> we will be
> > refining? Or so we want to start from a clean slate and 
> pull in input from
> > the document as needed? The question here is whether people 
> consider the
> > Vienna work to be deeply broken in some way or whether it 
> simply needs to be
> > finalized.
> > 
> > 2) Should XSD derivation be used when context rules are 
> applied: always,
> > sometimes or never? In others, what is the derivation 
> relationship, if any,
> > between contextual components and the base components that 
> yielded them?
> > 
> > 3) Are we assuming an additive methodology based on minimal 
> components, a
> > subtractive methodology based on maximal components or a 
> combination of
> > both?
> > 
> > 4) Should the transformation be represented as an adhoc XML 
> document (like
> > the Vienna approach) or using some standard transformation 
> language (such as
> > XSLT)?
> > 
> > 5) How do we determine how hierarchical context driver 
> values are matched?
> > For example, when does "France" match "Europe" (since 
> Europe contains
> > France) and when does it match only "France" exactly? The 
> Vienna document
> > uses the "Apply" attribute for this purpose
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 6) Do we still need assembly rules? There has been 
> discussion that the
> > construction of larger BIEs from core components using 
> standard schema
> > languages eliminates the need for a separate assembly language.
> > 
> > 7) Syntax of the context rules in general. Assuming that we 
> decide to use a
> > canonical syntax language (probably XSD), should we align 
> the names of the
> > context tags so they match the tags in the schema language? 
> Can we handle
> > all of the various constructs (global types, local types, 
> local elements,
> > etc.) that are retained by the Naming and Design 
> subcommittee? Are any of
> > the constructs redundant (e.g. what is the different 
> between "CreateElement"
> > and an "Add" tag containing and "Element" tag)?
> > 
> > This is all the occurred to me, but I'm sure that 
> discussion will lead to
> > many other points. If anyone has anything to add, please 
> post to the list
> > under this thread.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Matt
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: 
> eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
> XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (510) 986-3651 x73651
> Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         
>