[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dss] Core versus Extended Profile Handling
At 09:55 PM 11/6/2003 -0500, Edward Shallow wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >A profile (such as EPM) could have its own schema with greater precision >than the core, couldn't it? So even if the core just has <Options> as a >sequence of xs:any, that doesn't prevent the EPM profile from defining ><Options> as something more specific, which enumerates all the EPM options. > ><ed>yes you are right</ed> > >So I'm suggesting that if we keep doing what we're doing, for the core, you >can still get greater schema-typing in the profiles, if you want. Is that >good enough? > ><ed>If there are not too many constarints on how a profile extends, then >yes.</ed> > > >Finally, what is the team's stance on the first few profiles they have > >identified for co-publishing next July. If they have all their optional > >types and constructs published in the core they are not really profiles > >anymore, they are actually supported. > >I'd say they're still profiles because they say *which* options are allowed, >and which aren't. > ><ed>OK, I buy this definition. However in that narrow definition, the EPM >can no longer be called a profile.</ed> > > > > If a profile has everything it needs > >to proceed with implementation and need only define normative rules and > >usage examples, I don't call that a profile. > >I'd call that a profile. The requirements doc also uses the term 'profile' >in this broader sense: "A profile can limit optionality, instantiate >abstractions, add new elements into extensibility points, and add >processing rules." > ><ed>Then it sounds like you are voting for "B" as it applies to the core >itself and "C" for extending it ? Right ?</ed> For the core, I'm voting to keep it as-is. I.e. <Options> is a sequence of <xs:any>, and there's a bunch of core options that profiles can pick and choose from, or add their own (your "B" lists some options under <Options> and then has a catch-all, but I don't quite see the point of that). As for profiles - I'm not totally sure what option "C" means, could you elaborate (since this is your choice as well)? I was thinking a profile might just be some text that says "these 3 core options are allowed, and this core option is mandatory, and this profile option is allowed". If you wanted to translate that into a schema, you would translate the <Options> element as an <xs:all> of the option elements. In other words, there would be no ordering constraints on the options (in fact, we should *insist* that profiles not add ordering constraints). How does this fit with your thinking? Trevor
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]