[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
The whole "what to name containers" discussion is interesting. I think I
have a way (borrowed from the C type system) for resolving this. It's a
generalization of the existing naming rules.
We currently have ObjectClass.PropertyTerm.RepresentationTerm -- tripartite
naming. RepresentationTerm specifies the type of the property. What I
believe we're running up against here is that our type system (as it stands)
is insufficient to model what in C is called "derived types" and what in C++
is generalized to "parameterized types".
An example of a derived type in C is array. In order to do typechecking on
an array you have to know what it is an array "of". Properly, you need to
specify something like "array of int" or "array of contact".
C++ generalized this idea to parameterized types. In C++ you can define a
"generic type" e.g. a List<X> where X is the kind of thing to be contained
in instances of this type. So List<int> is a type of list that can hold an
int.
So I'm thinking that for our tripartite naming we (simply) need to expand
the capabilities of RepresentationTerm to (at a minimum) support our
container (derived) types. I suggest two container types initially:
sequence and set. List has too much of a data structure connotation for me,
whereas sequence is more abstract(leaving the door open to various
implementations). Precedent here in the Standard Template Library (STL) for
C++ and the newer Java JDK 1.4 abstractions around strings -- the new
character sequence interface.
So I would suggest LineItemSequence for the example from the minutes. I
guess Set and Sequence would have to become reserved words in our tiny
element naming scheme.
If we call the non-container types we've been dealing with to date something
like "direct" to distinguish them from derived types (containers,
parameterizable on a direct type), we could essentially expand
RepresentationTerm to be something like:
RepresentationTerm : DirectType
| DirectType + DerivedType
DerivedType : "Sequence"
| "Set"
So parsing LineItemSequence, "LineItem" is the DirectType and "Sequence" is
the DerivedType. Together they constitue a RepresentationTerm. This frees
you, should you need two such sequences at a particular level to distinguish
them via their PropertyTerm -- just the way we do with non-containers. I
love it when things fit together!
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:14 PM
To: ubl-ndrsc
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
1. Roll call (quorum is 8)
* Bill Burcham
* Mavis Cournane regrets
* Mark Crawford YES
* Fabrice Desré regrets
* Matt Gertner regrets
* Arofan Gregory YES
* Jessica Glace YES
* Michael Grimley YES
* Eduardo Gutentag YES
* Eve Maler YES
* Sue Probert YES (joined y:33)
* Lisa Seaburg YES
* Gunther Stuhec regrets
* Paul Thorpe regrets
* Chris Ketels awol
We achieved quorum once Sue joined, and approved previous weeks'
minutes at that time.
2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting
31 July 2002
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200207/msg00026.html
7 August 2002
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00011.html
Accepted.
3. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning
Adopted.
August 14:
- Regrets from Paul Thorpe, Mavis Cournane, Matt Gertner;
Sue Probert may be late
- NDR review needed on LCSC distribution
- NDR document review
- OO and containership papers and methodology implications
- Date/time: OO implications and comments received
- Finish embedded documentation decisions
- Identifier references
- Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements
August 21:
- Jessica and Mike might have to leave early
- Top-level message/element naming
- Continue reviewing NDR draft 15 Section 10
- All the deferred stuff from this week (need Gunther present!)
August 28:
- Regrets from Eve
- 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
- Everyone should try to reserve the Burlington Marriott
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 DONE
B Modnamver schema location IN PROGRESS
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:
- With Arofan, update the embedded documentation paper
according to August 7 decisions.
Mavis:
- Update the issues spreadsheet with Eve's comments.
- Amend NDR document to add example code for Period.
- NEW: Update NDR draft 15 with comments from our August 14 comments.
- NEW: Review comments that have come in on the NDR document for the
August 28 meeting.
Eve:
- Finish draft of code list document. IN PROGRESS
- Send 0pt65 schema comments to LC SC. DONE
- NEW: See if Mavis might be available for August 28 call.
- NEW: Send draft principle for "generation of code" to the NDR list.
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:
- NEW: Update modnamver and propose schema location solution. IN
PROGRESS
Jessica:
- NEW: Review 0pt65 release draft.
Mark:
- NEW: Look into readiness of planned August 16 LC release.
5. Other SC reports
LCSC discussed in #6 below.
6. NDR review needed on LCSC distribution
- Tim McGrath says the near-final draft will be ready Thursday
morning for final review; comments are needed within 36 hours.
We (Lisa in particular) are concerned that the quality and
completeness of the release may not be up to par.
7. Review latest NDR document
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-15
.doc
Comments:
- We need to say who the audiences are for this document, and
segregate the rules and guidelines per audience (e.g. the perl
script vs. people writing external modules). Ray Seddigh had
commented on this in Minneapolis, and would be a good source of
suggestions.
- Do we need a new, emerging guiding principle on "generation of
code"? Wherever we plan to generate XSD from a model, the model
needs enough information -- and the rules need to be deterministic
enough -- for the schema generation process to work. We'll try out
some wording.
- Should Chapter 2, on the metamodel, be changed to reflect the new
CCTS work? We think that this shouldn't be updated until a new
CCTS draft is put out, but the text (around line 173 in draft 15)
should explicitly reference V1.8 of CCTS without requiring people
to look at the References section.
- It would be great if each succeeding version (other than formal
distributions) were to show Track Changes (change bars etc.).
- We think the element naming rules need more work around containers
for series of like items. The LCSC dropped the container for
a series of ListItem elements because its dictionary entry was
Order.LineItem.Details, and the truncation rules would turn it
into a LineItem element (containing multiple LineItem elements
that are technically different by being locally defined), which
is wicked confusing.
We agreed that we need a new rule for how to name the property
term when its contents are a series of like items. We agreed that
the ordered/unordered distinction is not particularly important,
so we discarded the option of using the word "Set" at all. Our
understanding is that multiple qualifiers are going to be allowed
under the new CCTS situation.
Straw poll:
property qualifier property term comments (preferred, acceptable)
ListOf LineItem The term is false in this case
ListOf LineItems Qualifier stuff too complicated
ListOfLineItem p=1 a=0
ListOfLineItems p=0 a=2
LineItemList p=5 a=2 We have a winner!
LineItems p=0 a=4
LineItemsList p=0 a=0
We discussed whether LineItemList should use "List" as the term and
"LineItem" (or whatever) as the qualifier, but decided that a
"naked list" as a object class's property is just too vague a
notion.
Some examples:
Order.LineItemList.Details
Item.SubstituteItemIdentifierList.Details
Item.PhysicalAttributeList.Details
- Section 10 UBL Messages:
Bullet #1 (line 552) touches on a rule that's in modnamver but is
not yet in the NDR document. Should it appear in two places in the
NDR document?
Bullet #2 (line 554) is a little ambiguous as it stands.
Obviously, different trading communities might extend a UBL
purchase order message for their own uses, but it will have the
"same business function" as the original one.
Bullets #3-4 is similar to the element naming covered in lines
284-285. We need to be more explicit about whether verbs or nouns
are meant, and what a "business function" is.
- Rules for dictionary entry naming when applying context: We need to
say that qualifiers should be added, and how to do that.
We deferred all the items below.
* * *
8. OO and containership papers and methodology implications
OO paper:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00014.html
Containership paper:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/p-gregory-containers-
02.doc
9. Date/time: OO implications and comments received
Date/time paper:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/p-stuhec-datetime-05.
doc
Comments from Mike Grimley:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00009.html
Comments from Bob Miller (already discussed?):
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200207/msg00008.html
10. Finish embedded documentation decisions
See last week's minutes for previous decisions and status.
- Where to insert all the documentation elements in each XSD
construct?
- 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.
11. Identifier references
12. Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements
13. Adjourn
Adjourned at z:17.
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives eve.maler @ sun.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC