[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM and cascading profiles (ASD, ATA, ...)
Hi Franck,
good point that needs to be clarified. Please
find my comments inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
DULUC, Franck [mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com]
>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:05 PM
> To:
cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] WebCGM and
cascading profiles (ASD, ATA, ...)
>
>
> Hi
all,
>
> I know you may think I am
sleeping during our
> discussion but it is not the case. I am listening to
you all
> trying to follow-up the works wuth my user
perspective.
>
> Last wednesday, I
heard someting on which I want to
> react and would like to have people
views.
> Just before Dieter left us, we
were discussing what to
> do with a non-WebCGM file (like a cascaded one
from the ATA).
> I heard things like "if it is ATA instead of WebCGM, I
will
> ignore it because it could be unsafe trying to handle
>
something for which the viewer has not been developped".
>
>
Taking the time to think about it:
>
-
there is not interst for ATA and ASD to
> cascade profiles
because:
>
- files will not be handled by
viewers
>
- Users like Boeing, MoD UK and
Airbus,
> if publishing Industry-compliant profiles compliant CGM
>
files, will have to translate them to use them with common
> available
viewers (based on WebCGM).
>
- the logical conclusion is then
forget
> cascading profiles and eveybody has to adopt WebCGM as
>
defined by OASIS TC.
This is not what we have in mind,
and we want to do everything
to avoid this
situation.
>
> What a very
dark future! I do not really think this is
> the one we have been working
on together for years now. So
> let's say tht we want to keep going with
cascading profiles.
> Below is my view on this subject:
>
> A)
Context
> 1) I understand the point of view
of implementors: too
> many implementations are not reasonnable in terms
of
> costs/profits ratio.
> 2) It is
dangerous to have a viewer handling a file for
> which it has not been
designed.
> 3) Today, availablle viewers
are displaying CGM files
> whatever the profile is, based on their
capacity to display
> CGM prrimitives (without considering the
profiles).
Agreed, and this won't
change.
>
> B) Requirements
>
1) Viewers have to know if their DOM is compliant
with
> the one for which the file has been defined
There is no way that
the viewer can detect this, unless we find
a way that a viewer can
read/digest a profile document.
> 2)
Users have to have the capability to tune CGM
> primitives usage (Style
guides, forbidden primitives)
This is an interesting
concept for the future, I consider this one
out of scope for WebCGM
2.0
>
> C) Assumption:
>
1) There is no need to extend the DOM for an
industry group:
>
1.a) the DOM as designed is fully
enabled in
> terms of CGM and allows access to industry specific data
that
> are stored in the XCF file in the exetensible parts.
>
1.b)
any requirement to enrich the DOM is of
> common interest for CGM users
and is therefore to be
> developped with the reference standard
(WebCGM).
Agreed, this is exactly the
intention.
>
> D) Way of Working for
cascading profile
> 1) Each profile is to
identify from which WebCGM it is
> derived, allowing therefore to idnetify
what is the DOM version.
> 2) No DOM/XCF
(for the WebCGM) parts to be allowed to
> cascaded profiles.
>
3) Viewers to check first if the file is derived
from
> somthing they understand in terms of DOM.
Agreed, this is what we want to do. The WebCGM DOM should
be
rich and good enough to cover all requirements from WebCGM as
well as
those from potential cascading profiles.
>
> E) Conclusion
> 1) This
way allows users to have their requirements
> fully covered
>
2) Implementation are secured
>
3) This is just a simple email and is not
therefore the
> magic solution that can be found in less than 5 minutes
(or
> ten when I ma writing english). However, I think this the
>
basic idea to be discussed and investigated. The other one
> that i
foresee is "dark future".
> 4) I hope I
will get comments and reactions.
You are summarizing the
intentions very well, and this is my understanding
how WebCGM and cascading
profiles will work.
The problems that I saw would arise exactly in those
cases
that you want to avoid as well, e.g.
a cascading profile changes the
DOM or the semantics of the XCF,
the viewer doesn't know about it and fails,
or
the vendor has to implemented various behaviors.
Let me add one
more comment:
Organisations writing a cascading profile off WebCGM 2.0 should
be
encouraged to forward any requirement regarding DOM and XCF to
CGM Open
for consideration and incorporation into the next version
of
WebCGM.
Best regards,
Dieter
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Franck DULUC
>
Technical Data Research Manager
> Customer Services - SDND
> AIRBUS
France
>
> Phone: +33 (0)5 61 18 19 16
> Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93
59 44
> mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com
>
>
Address:
> BP D0611, 316, route de Bayonne
> 31060 TOULOUSE Cedex,
FRANCE
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail is intended
only for the above addressee. It may
> contain privileged information. If
you are not the addressee
> you must not copy, distribute, disclose or use
any of the
> information in it. If you have received it in error
please
> delete it and immediately notify the sender.
> Security
Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address,
> may be accessed by
someone other than the recipient, for
> system management and security
reasons. This access is
> controlled under Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000,
> Lawful Business Practises.
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]