[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 7 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
Minutes for 7 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
1. Roll call (quorum is 8)
* Bill Burcham YES
* Mavis Cournane regrets
* Mark Crawford awol
* Fabrice Desré regrets
* Matt Gertner regrets
* Arofan Gregory YES (joined y:20)
* Jessica Glace awol
* Michael Grimley regrets
* Eduardo Gutentag regrets
* Eve Maler YES
* Sue Probert YES (joined x:59)
* Lisa Seaburg YES
* Gunther Stuhec YES (joined y:06)
* Paul Thorpe YES
* Chris Ketels awol
Quorum not achieved by x:40; we proceeded informally.
(0. Informal discussion of the internal 0pt65 drafts)
In reviewing the 0pt65 XSD draft just sent out by Gunther,
we noticed the following issues.
- Wrapper for LineItem*:
Between 0pt64 and 0pt65, we noticed that the Details element
that had wrapped the series of LineItem elements had disappeared,
and learned that this was because all the parts of the element's
name (Order, Details, etc.) needed to vanish according to our
naming/truncation rules. It was not our intent for the naming
rules to have substantive effect on choices of whether elements
should exist! :-) We recommend that a wrapper element be added
back.
There are a number of ways this could be done, intersecting
with our existing recommendations in various ways.
* One way is to simply pick a different property term and
qualifier for this one wrapper element, keeping in mind how the
naming rules get applied to ensure that the element name doesn't
get "zeroed out." (This smacks a bit of gaming the system.)
* Another way is to consider how to handle the NDR Containership
paper's recommendation to always add intermediate containers
around series of like elements (such as LineItem*), and apply
it -- whatever it is -- to this situation. Given the initial
feedback we've received on this paper, this would probably
mean adding back a row for not only this instance but other
cases of element-series. It would also probably mean applying
a naming rule in all cases that doesn't really exist yet:
Should the element name net out to LineItemList? LineItemSeries?
LineItemSet? and how would this work with our tripartite naming
scheme? and do we want to reflect the significance of series
ordering in this rule (e.g., set vs. list)?
As a reminder, the motivations for having wrapper elements around
element-series are that (a) it gives a place to hang metadata and
extensions that apply only to those elements and not their other
siblings, and (b) it makes certain obvious kinds of processing
easier and more natural (e.g., applying processing to all children
and grabbing the first and last elements).
- ID/identifier naming
The automatic application of the naming/truncation rules related
to the Identifier representation term almost work, but there are
inconsistencies. First, the truncation should be from Identifier
to "ID", not "Id". Second, in many caes the truncation doesn't
seem to have been applied at all. An analysis is needed to
determine whether the spreadsheet formula is at fault, or whether
particular column fields need adjustment. (It appears that all
cases of elements called merely "Identifier", with no prefix, are
uniformly not shortened.
- No top-level elements
In contrast to 0pt64, the draft of 0pt65 seems to be missing
declarations for top-level elements for Order etc.
2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting
31 July 2002
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200207/msg00026.html
Deferred.
3. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning
Agenda adopted.
August 7:
- NDR review needed on LCSC 0pt65 and methodology paper
- Embedded documentation writeup and issues
- Date/time update
- Identifier references
- Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements
August 14:
- Regrets from Paul Thorpe; Sue Probert may be late
- NDR document review
- OO and containership papers and methodology implications
- Date/time: OO implications and comments received
- Finish embedded documentation decisions
August 21:
August 28:
- NDR document review
September 4:
- Regrets from Paul Thorpe
September 11:
- Regrets from Paul Thorpe, possibly from folks in Geneva
- NDR document review
September 18:
- Regrets from Gunther Stuhec
- Approve documents for review distribution #3
September 25:
- No meeting; work on other UBL tasks instead
October 1-4:
- F2F #5 in Burlington, MA, USA
A NDR document improvements (review every two weeks)
A+ Embedded documentation NEARLY DONE
A Code lists IN PROGRESS
A Dates and times IN PROGRESS
A Nested supplementary components IN PROGRESS
A Identifier references and whether to pass content by reference
A- Local vs. global elements
B+ Containership IN PROGRESS
B Updating guiding principles
B Modnamver URN/schema location
B Referencing of content, e.g. for attachments
C Facets
C Wildcards/open content
C Nillability
C Aggregation of similar information for XPath V1.0 addressing
4. Action item review
Lisa:
- Review Gunther's script for new issues. DONE
- With Arofan, update the embedded documentation paper
according to today's decisions.
Mavis:
- Update the issues spreadsheet with Eve's comments.
- Amend NDR document to add example code for Period.
Eve:
- Finish draft of code list document. IN PROGRESS
- Send 0pt65 schema comments to LC SC.
Gunther:
- Write content referencing paper. IN PROGRESS
- Review the date/time comments and recommend dispositions.
DONE
- Send date/time NDR snippets to Mavis. IN PROGRESS
- With Arofan, prepare samples of how to handle second-tier
attributes. IN PROGRESS
- Bring the donkey to Burlington!
Bill:
- Update modnamver; discuss with Eve and Lisa. IN PROGRESS
5. Other SC reports
Already done in the course of things.
6. NDR review needed on LCSC 0pt65 and methodology paper
We're covered on 0pt65; see agenda item 0 above.
On the methodology paper, the following issues were noted:
- The containership paper and Gunther's new OO design paper
(not formally published yet) point out various design drivers
that bear on the ultimate representation(s) of the models.
Ideally these perspectives would be covered as part of the
methodology, whether in the methodology paper or as some sort
of adjunct.
- The paper needs to be somewhat more transparent in order to
be successfully picked up and used by potential designers.
For example, it would be really useful to literally document
the actual steps applied by the LC SC today. An example of
a concrete methodology-explaining approach can be found in
Sally's CCSD draft (though the methodologies in question may
not have anything to do with each other).
Dave Carlson has tools at xmlmodeling.com to translate between
UML and XML (various kinds of XML schemas). In particular, the
tools can take an XMI representation of a model and generate XSD
from it (and vice versa). Rather than having people interpret
the UBL schema modules into UML by hand, can we get this generated?
We recommend that the Tools & Techniques SC take this up.
7. Embedded documentation writeup and issues
Issues:
- Where to insert all the documentation elements in each XSD
construct?
Note that some constructs will need to contain embedded constructs
that themselves need to be documented. Also, we want to make the
job of the script as easy (i.e., consistent) as possible. Lisa
will take a crack at this. The schema for XSD itself has a lot of
documentation in it, and it might be useful as a source of common
practice.
Not finished.
- Use xsd:documentation or xsd:appinfo?
Dave Carlson's posting on this pointed out that appinfo is usually
for executable code. Since the documentation is all taken from a
model that's meant for human consumption, we agreed that using
xsd:documentation is most appropriate. This doesn't preclude
anyone from using our documentation fields for further processing,
and leaves appinfo free for (e.g.) Schematron business rules.
Finished.
- What inner XHTML element(s) should be used inside xhtml:div?
For now, Gunther will use xhtml:p and we'll use this as the
default. But we recognize that each field might best use a
different kind of XHTML markup; we'll discover this as we go.
Finished.
- Review the table of documentation keywords.
Some of the keywords are missing underscores. Also, some of them
are out of date with respect to the current spreadsheet. Arofan
and Lisa need to review these.
Finished.
- Should the src attribute indeed be avoided, as recommended?
A URI's presence on all these xsd:documentation elements not only
looks messy and confusing, but no software currently acts on it
and we're not even sure what we would point to. So the normative
modules shouldn't populate this field, but further doctored
XSD versions can choose to populate it if they want to.
Finished.
- Don't include the whole XHTML Basic listing; just point to it.
Make it so.
Finished.
- Make sure to at least provide a reference to the code list
document, which puts some requirements on documentation.
- Need to include rules on which fields need to be present for
which XSD constructs.
- The UBL schema modules need to incorporate XHTML Basic properly
(e.g., declaring its prefix? importing the schema?).
- We need to say explicitly what XHTML Basic version number.
All these are deferred; Arofan and Lisa will try to make
recommendations on these areas in the next revision.
8. Date/time update
Gunther's OO design paper impacts the periodicity issue. We'll
discuss this next week.
9. Identifier references
10. Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements
Both of these items were deferred.
11. Adjourn
Adjourned z:25.
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC