OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cam message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: FW: CAM Thoughts

Title: Message
From: Hipson,C,Chris,XSJ61 HIPSONC R
Sent: 13 May 2004 15:16
To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R
Subject: CAM Thoughts

Hi Martin


Having discovered that I can’t post to the CAM list [bad attendance record I guess J] I thought I’d run a few thoughts by you.


Overall CAM looks nice although I imagine it won’t fly well with existing schema fanatics J  [not complex enough].


I like the way that CAM provides ‘deterministic flexibility’ sidestepping the XML-Schema issue that a flexible schema makes everything optional.

However assuming that users will start from existing XML there appear to be some omissions?

1)      There is no predicate support for namespaces.  [Yes I know you don’t like them but if you need to meet existing XML documents half way then you’re going to need this?]

2)      In XML-Schema xs:all allows a ‘group’ of elements to appear in any order rather then in the order listed. While I doubt there’s much demand for this in business documents it would be very hard to reproduce in CAM without explicit support? So may be worth adding?



Requires a StructureID which is only available as an Advanced Option? But the predicate itself is not itself an Advanced option?

“Donates that the specified parent element can occur recursively as a child of this parent.”

Does this mean that a block of XML could appear anywhere in the tree under the parent?

This would seem excessively liberal and would prevent any hope of building an XML-Schema from a CAM template as David Webber would like to do?

Surely you need to have some ‘link’ from the point the recursion is ‘inserted’ to the structure that is to be ‘recursed’?

Or have a missed something?????????


Packaging – trivial observation but the current vogue [at least in web services J] is to try and make large specs appear smaller by chopping them up!

In the case of CAM this might fly quite nicely as CAM Base would equate to your stuff and CAM Patterns and CAM Repositories to Davids?


How’s the selling process going with UBL?  Where does it sit with respect to ebXML [which it obviously sits quite well with]? And are you looking anywhere else?  ISO have for instance DSDL which is a schema collective wrapped round XML Schema, RELAX NG, Schematron etc. etc. – might offer some scope for feedback if nothing else?


Cheers Chris Hipson

Web Service Technology Consultant

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Albert Einstein

Tel. 01977 593109


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]