[ubl-ndrsc] Minutes from 30 October

The NDR SC met by phone on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 @ 11:30EDT.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2002&mon=10&day=30&hour=15&min=30&sec=0

1. Roll call

Bill Burcham Yes

Mavis Cournane Yes at x:45

Mark Crawford Yes

Fabrice Desré Regrets

Arofan Gregory Yes

Jessica Glace Regrets

Michael Grimley Yes

Eduardo Gutentag Yes

Eve Maler Regrets

Sue Probert Yes

Lisa Seaburg Yes

Gunther Stuhec Yes at X:45

Paul Thorpe Yes left at x:26

Kris Ketels No

Quorum was achieved at x40.

2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting

16 October 2002 accepted.

3. Adoption of agenda. Adopted as published.

4. Review action items and status

Paul:

- Do an analysis of the "XML Constructs" chapter to figure out the XML/XSD-specificity question at a finer granularity, and make any editorial suggestions based on the analysis.

- Status: Sections 6 and 7 are quite XSD specific, the rest of the document is non-XSD. Sections 6 and 7 will require changes if/when we accommodate other schema languages. Complete.

Mavis:

- Turn the free normative text in the NDR document into isolated, numbered rules.

- Status: still open. Lisa is working with Mavis, and has identified approach. Should have something to release next week.

Mavis and Bill:

- Get together offline to move the appropriate modnamver paper content into the NDR document.

- Status: Complete.

Eve:

- Compile a list of the supplementary components and their

definitions on a per-CCT basis. Status: unknown.

- Ask the Sun XML community to analyze the seriousness of the

fragment processing problem with local elements. Status: unknown.

Docket:

Priority	Work Item	Status	Responsibility
A	Issues appearing in the NDR document	Break down into smaller pieces	Mavis
A	Local vs. global –	Complete. Need to incorporate into NDR.	Mavis to include
A	Code lists	Needs new draft	Eve
A	CCT module work	In progress. Needs to be broken down into smaller pieces. Section 3 work in the NDR document is dependent on this.	Open - Gunter
A	Containership	Joint effort with LC needs final resolution. Still open	Arofan was volunteered by Lisa
B	Referencing strategies.	Part of CCT Module Work. Update in progress. Anticipate position paper on 5 November.	Gunter
B	Naming rules	Done	Mavis
C	Facet outreach	Still working. Gunter has received material from Lisa.	Lisa and Gunter
C	MODNAMVER	Complete.	Bill
C	Embedded documentation	Needs to be moved to NDR document.	Arofan
C	ASN.1 schema	Done – However there is an issue within the group on how/should to present this	Larmouth
C	Updating guiding principles	In Progress	Mavis/Lisa
C	Wildcards	Open	Lisa
C	Nillability	Started.	Lisa
C	Instance Constraints	Open	Lisa

5. Local vs. global details

Background:

See Eve's XML 2002 paper for a proposal for how to turn the decision into Pearl Script

Actions:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200210/zip00002.zip

Discussion on relevant passage as follows:

* Discussion Point: Object classes (aggregate BIEs) are turned into complex type definitions and element declarations that are directly bound to these types.

- Team agrees. Gunter will review Pearl Script.

* Discussion Point: Properties (association and basic BIEs) are turned into element references in the content models of the object class complex types. If a suitable element declaration was not already created above, it is created now. (There may be multiple elements with the same type but different names.)

- Arofan thinks it is worth pointing out that he does not believe with the current naming rules we will end up with the multiple elements but there is no need to change the statement. This appears to be driven by the spreadsheet approach as much as the naming rules. Bill believes this may be true because we are adding the Type to the name.

* Discussion Point: The properties are bound to types indicated by the relevant representation terms. Where a representation term corresponds to one of the prescribed CCTs, its corresponding XSD type is used. Where a representation term corresponds to an object class (aggregate BIE), that complex type is used instead.

- Team agrees, however there is concern on Gunter’s part on how to make this happen (basic BIE’s and XSD) with the scripts. Gunter is especially concerned if we have restrictions and he is trying to get the pearl scripts to be able to handle restrictions. There seems to be support for including in the NDR document a mapping of prescribed CCTs and XSD types (Mark to do).

* Discussion Point: A combination of the definition of the generic element-as-object-class (the original declaration, associated with a type) and the specific element-as-property-of-a-higher-object-class (the reference in a content model) provides a complete view of the meaning.

- Team agrees and Mavis to incorporate as text for NDR document.

* Discussion Point: (Additive to last discussion point) Eve made the statement “This probably affects assembly since it creates elements and attaches BIE definitions that can be referenced by assemblers of new message types.”

- The team did not understand this, and will ask Eve for clarification.

6. Take tentative decision on containership

- We reviewed the containership write-up in the 1-4 October minutes. No disagreement with contents, however team feels minutes may not capture whole thread of discussion on list. We did drive to conclusions that do not appear to be included. Bill has made post to LCSC that may more accurately reflect position. Lisa to send NDR link to Tim’s latest paper on this issue. There is concern with approach. Question on impact led to discussion on significant differences that need to be addressed. LCSC is having an additional call tomorrow that will more accurately determine position of LCSC and will drive approach. NDR does not feel it is in a position to take a tentative decision on this until the LCSC call occurs. Gunter will keep script based on current approach (0.66) until such time as LCSC and NDR are in complete agreement.

Bill reviewed issues.

1) What is our position – From an NDR perspective, “do we or don’t we use extra container elements in our XML. There is a post on 19 October to UBL Comment and LCSC – subject is “Re: LCSC Meeting Minutes”. (RE: [ubl-lcsc] Meeting Minutes From "Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com> on Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:36:15 -0400 (EDT)):

“My understanding is that NDRSC believes that there is not sufficient motivation for our dictating 'extra' container elements (in the XML binding). In other words the XML realization (done by The Pearl Script) of the association from OrderHeader to LineItem is fine as it stands -- OrderHeader has an element with maxOccurs='unbounded' to represent the association. I think NDRSC was suggesting that the name of the element might ought to be something like "LineItemList" (if it ain't already) -- but other than that, I think the _structure_ is fine.”

2) Following taken verbatim from Eve’s posting in September (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200209/msg00028.html:

“- The overhead of basic (syntactic) list containers seems not to be
   worth the extra power you get in customization.

- We might find an occasional semantic ABIE that contains series of like
elements (plus possibly an unlike thing or two), but it should rely
on a regular analysis of functional dependencies. This discussion
has opened our eyes to this possibility, and suggests the various
   0..n and 1..n properties should be briefly re-examined for missing
   opportunities, but there's no need for wholesale changes.”

3) Discussion: We did not recommend inserting extra container elements into XML. Arofan finds it very difficult with XSLT when he does not have an easy container. Norm at F2F offered what he called easy way. Arofan would like to see this. Bill suggested it was using IF for first and last elements. General discussion followed on the way this could be done. Eduardo says it is easy if you have container but it is not impossible if you don’t. Although there is not universal agreement, the team does feel they have agreement not to insert extra container elements (non-presentation) into XML.

As a subcommittee we will review LCSC work and make sure they are in alignment with our recommendations. We cannot do the review because LCSC is in flux.

7. NDR document. Mavis believes latest version is non-contentious and is hopeful for release next week. She will work with Gunter on Facets. She will work with Lisa on rules and guiding principles.

8. Next meeting topics

November 6 (Eve and Mark regrets; Mark to prepare agenda, Lisa will chair)

Containership

Facets

NDR Document Review – Rules discussion

Other Schema representation

Referencing Strategies – depending on Gunter’s ability to finish work.

Embedded documentation – depending on Arofan’s ability to finish work

November 13 (Eve regrets, Mark will cover)

NDR Document – Section 3

November 18-22 F2F Agenda

Mark will send out first cut to listserve

9. Adjourned at y:35

Mark

Mark Crawford

Research Fellow

LMI XML Lead & OASIS, W3C, and RosettaNet Representative

Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC

Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group

Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components

______

Logistics Management Institute

2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805

(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518

Wireless (703) 655-4810

mcrawford@lmi.org

http://www.lmi.org

"Opportunity is what you make of it"

----------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription

manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

ubl-ndrsc message