-----Original
Message-----
From: Tim King
[mailto:tmk@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 03 June 2004 09:59
To: 'plcs@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
It has
been suggested that the quote at point 6 below:
"The
PLCS consortium is planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML Schema through
OASIS, so they don t expect implementations to be EXPRESS-based."
is not an
agreed OASIS PLCS TC position in respect of not using EXPRESS-based
implementations. Certainly, I believe that the second half of the
sentence is not a logical sequitur of the first. I have made this second
point to the receipients of the original message.
As ever,
Tim.
*************************************************************************
*
* Dr. Timothy M. KING
CEng MIMechE PhD DIC ACGI
* Executive Consultant, Enterprise
Integration Technologies
* LSC Group, Concept House,
Victoria Road, TAMWORTH, UK - B79 7HL
* Switchboard:
+44-1827-708000 Fax: +44-1827-708500
* Direct telephone:
+44-1827-708535 (with VoiceMail)
* Mobile telephone: +44-7813-131779
* e-mail: tmk@lsc.co.uk
Internet: http://www.lsc.co.uk/
*
*************************************************************************
At 04:39
PM 12/2/2003 +0000, David Price wrote:
>Hello
WG3 and WG12,
>
>
>
>We ve been working with the
AP233 and AP239 teams on Part 28 Edition 2 and
XML Schema. Part 28 E2 introduces a
configuration language allowing the
production of an XML schema to be
tailored for an EXPRESS schema. The
tailoring can happen at the global,
entity and/or attribute level. The
issue that has been raised during
the discussions with AP233 and AP239 is
if, or how, this capability should
be used.
>
>
>
>I m trying to gather business
requirements and technical requirements in
this area. If you have requirements
or usage scenarios in this area, I d
appreciate hearing about them.
>
>
>
>So far, what I ve heard from
these two teams (and relayed to the Part 28
team today) is the following:
>
>
>
>1) A single configuration to
produce a default data exchange XML Schema
for both (or all?) APs is required.
Some have said they want WG3/SC4 to
agree and mandate a single
configuration for AP implementation.
>
>2) Exactly what the XML
document looks like is not that important as a
high level, model based API will be
used.
>
>3) The XML schema elements
should be recognizable as being derived from
the EXPRESS schema, but trying to
reflect the EXPRESS structure in XML is
less important than simplicity and consistency.
>
>4) Interoperability, and
therefore the same configuration, is a high
priority for AP233, AP239 and PDM
capabilities.
>
>5) The first AP233 and AP239
implementations will be based on the ARM, not
the AIM. This may continue to be
true for all implementations as well.
>
>6) The PLCS consortium is
planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML Schema
through OASIS, so they don t expect
implementations to be EXPRESS-based.
>
>
>
>Do other AP teams share these
requirements? I agree they are not all
completely consistent (ARM v. AIM),
but requirements seldom are. If your
requirements are different, in what
way?
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>David
>
>
>
>Phone +44 20 7704 0499
>
>Mobile +44 7788 561308
>
>8 Highbury Place, Flat 5
>
>London N5 1QZ
>
>
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY
MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may
be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to
this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any
action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this
message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England
& Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport,
Plymouth, PL1 4SG