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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

codelist message

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

Subject: RE: [codelist] Comments on context-value-association-0.2-D1-20071121-0250z

My thoughts on a few of these:

#3. Agree. "Schemata" may be classically correct, but the W3C debated this and settled on "schemas". We should go with that. Better than the "schemae" that one of my clients insisted on. But he was the customer[1].

#7. They are different. We need to be explicit about which version we are supporting. As I mentioned elsewhere, if we support both, I think the CVA file needs to indicate which version it is using as they are not compatible. I think the subset is the XSLT subset and that this is stated. Either I am wrong, or it was not clear to Tony. Either way, it must need to be explained more clearly.

#17. Agree.

#18. I hesitated to suggest this in my comments as it adds complexity, but I agree that following the XSLT model would be good.

#20. Agree.

[1] The two rules of business: (1) The customer is always right. (2) When the customer is wrong, see rule 1.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Coates [mailto:abcoates@mileywatts.com]
> Sent: 13 January 2008 20:39
> Subject: [codelist] Comments on
> context-value-association-0.2-D1-20071121-0250z
> These are my comments on the specification document.  Cheers, Tony.
> --
> #1: A4 page 4: 2nd paragraph in introduction jumps in too quickly 
> with insufficient explanation of the problem context.  It is also 
> too oblique in its initial references to code lists.  An 
> introduction needs to introduce the concepts for people who are 
> not already experts.  I personally find the introduction 
> confusing as written.
> #2: A4 page 4: Is the introduction meant to be normative?  It is 
> not marked as non-normative as some other sections are.
> #3: A4 page 4: "Schemata" is not a suitable way to refer to "XML 
> schemas" here, because the "XML" context hasn't been established 
> (and the correctness of writing "schemata" rather than "schemas" 
> also hasn't been so well established - "schemas" is what readers 
> will be familiar with).
> #4: A4 page 4: Why "meta data" rather than "metadata"?  I don't 
> believe "meta" is a word in its own right.
> #5: A4 page 4: XML documents aren't hierarchies, they are 
> documents where the data is structured hierarchically.  That 
> isn't the same thing.
> #6: A4 page 4: Don't write "an example could be".  An example 
> *is* something, there is no need to be tentative about it.
> #7: A4 page 4: Is the subset of XPath 1.0 also a subset of XPath 
> 2.0?  Can it just be referred to as a subset of XPath?  The 
> subset needs defined somewhere, but doesn't appear to be defined anywhere.
> #8: A4 page 5: There seems to be a natural connection between CVA 
> files and OASIS XML Catalogs.  Can something be added to support that?
> #9: A4 page 6: Could some be added to the text surrounding Figure 
> 2 to indicate that although the genericode files are the source 
> of the code list information, it is not a requirement that the 
> genericode files are accessed directly during validation?
> #10: A4 page 6: "bakes in" may be too colloquial an expression 
> for non-native English speakers to understand unambiguously.
> #11: A4 page 6: "on the expression of on the" contains a typo.
> #12: A4 page 6: The text suggests that the CVA validation cannot 
> be done before the structural (schema) validation.  However, 
> we've already accepted that it can work if the two passes are 
> done in parallel (for NVDL), and that suggests that actually the 
> two passes could be done in either order, depending on which 
> kinds of error you most interested in seeing first.  Is that a 
> valid interpretation?
> #13: A4 page 7: Are code values really published for "concepts"?  
> People don't think of countries and currencies as being concepts, 
> so is there an alternative way this can be expressed?
> #14: A4 page 7: Isn't XPath a mandated technology?  Or, what 
> qualifies as a technology?  It isn't obvious to me as I read the text.
> #15: A4 page 7: Can mention of particular implementations be 
> moved to an appendix?
> #16: Section 2.2: Why is Schematron defined here?
> #17: Section 2.3: I think your definition of "lexical validation" 
> needs to be defined, since some people would suggest that value 
> validation is just part of lexical validation.
> #18: A4 page 10: Could inclusion also have precedence based on a 
> "priority" attribute, as it is in XSLT?  That would be a familiar 
> approach for many of the community that this specification is aimed at.
> #19: A4 page 11: "single key comprised of multiple column 
> references" - this is called a "compound key" in the genericode 
> specification.
> #20: A4 page 11: I'm concerned about the lack of support for 
> genericode compound keys.  They can be supported in the 
> specification in the same way that W3C XML Schema supports them.  
> I would like to see them supported in the specification, even if 
> some implementations don't support them.
> #21: A4 page 13: "foreign content" - the meaning of this isn't 
> sufficiently clear; it sounds too much like "foreign-language content".
> #22: Conformance D1: Why "genericode.xsd"?
> #23: Conformance D4: This needs to change, as there shouldn't be 
> *any* genericode files that are not conformant with the CVA specification.
> #24: Conformance A2: Why is this necessary?  Also, what are 
> "association results", and how do they differ from other results 
> (like "validation results")?
> #25: Conformance A3: As noted, we should consider changing this 
> to reflect the way precedence works with XSLT templates.
> #26: Conformance A4: what about "xml:base"?  This should be 
> supported at (possibly) all levels for relative URI resolution.
> #27: Conformance A6: should optional "priority" attributes also 
> apply here?
> --
> Anthony B. Coates
> Senior Partner
> Miley Watts LLP
> Experts In Data
> UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700
> Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
> Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 
> http://www.mileywatts.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your 
> TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

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