David,
I
don't think there was ever an issue wrt to publishing in XML.
The
point was that AP239 is an Express based standard (or will be), but due to it's
size it is unlikely that it'll be implemented as a whole. Hence the provision of
Dexs. However, the Dexs are not an ISO recognised product or standard, hence an
industrially based forum where such products could be placed (Oasis) was chosen
to develop them. I believe the idea was that SC4 would bring in the Dexs as
a Technical Specification at a later date.
The
Dexs are viewed as subets of the AP, but based upon business exchange
requirements rather than a traditional conformance class. These views of
the AP are being published in XML, however, they are still based upon the
Express of AP239. There are discussions regarding the binding of XML to
Express (which is ONE of the implementation methods) - which this thread was
addressing.
The
PLCS consortium, and it's founding members has not, as far as I'm aware, agreed
to restrict implementations to only be based upon XML. This was my point.
If I
am wrong on this, then yes, I'd like to hear it from the
Chair.
Kind
regards,
Tim
Hi Tim and
Tim,
I was the author of
the offending email so want to comment.
I’ve never been to a
PLCS consortium meeting so don’t know what was debated or when. However, what
I said is the obvious, logical conclusion of the actions taken wrt
standardizing PLCS for industrial use. I would be surprised, but not shocked,
if people don’t realize this.
1 OASIS is a body for
making XML-based industrial standards.
2 The PLCS consortium
members have reformed as the OASIS PLCS TC.
3 That TC plans on
publishing standards with the OASIS “seal of approval”.
4 Therefore, an
XML-based PLCS standard is what will be published and is what the members
expect industry to use.
If there’s an error
in my logic, please point it out.
I hope you aren’t
suggesting that the OASIS PLCS TC was formed to publish EXPRESS-based
standards and push Part 21 implementations. If that’s the case, all I can say
is that I believe that’s a mistake of colossal proportions wrt widespread
take-up of PLCS.
Cheers,
David
-----Original
Message----- From: Tim
[mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net] Sent: 08 June 2004 21:42 To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Tim King' Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
I, for one, was
rather alarmed by the impression that the consortium had already made such a
decision; apparantly with little debate!
I fully agree with
your latter statement!
-----Original
Message----- From: John
Dunford [mailto:esukpc15@gotadsl.co.uk] Sent: 08 June 2004 15:03 To: 'Tim King';
plcs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
Although I have not
been much involved of late I agree with Tim that the proposed
wording could be improved. The aim is to enable XML, not to kill
off EXPRESS.
John Dunford,
Eurostep
Limited,
25, Chaucer Road, BATH BA2 4QX,
UK
Tel: +44 1225
789347
Mobile: +44 0797 491
8202
www.eurostep.com
www.share-a-space.com
-----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
|