|
Dave,
in
fact we are publishing both within a Dex
on Dexlib. That is, both the Express & XML Schema version of the
PLCS model. Look at the Dex/Models & Dex/Development Views
sections - of Dex1 for example. So, if we are
providing the XML Schema in addition, I don't see a problem with the interaction
with other TC groups.
However, I don't
know if what gets published on Dexlib is (or could) be the same as what would
eventually get published as a standard within Oasis (from the view of what
people are asked to vote on), or if PLCS (sorry, the consortium) has
actually made the decision/commitment to actually publish a (set of) Oasis
standards. (.. though I feel sure someone will tell me in short
order!).
I think that this
is the nub of the issue & if true, then looking at existing Oasis work, I
suspect we'd have to re-organise the Dexs (yet again) if we wanted to generate
an Oasis Standard view from Dexlib. Although, depending upon how you interpret
the last part of the quote below, when refering to "other related standards.”, there may not be a
restriction on publishing a model using more than one representation - it just
hasn't been done yet from what I can see. If that is not practical, then
it may be, that we actually end up with a set of standards where we
publish the Dexs as TS's in SC4 (which contain the Express) and a mirror Oasis
Dex (which has the XML), or we re-do the conformance classes of AP239 in place
of the TS's.
I am not pushing for one or the other - I want to be free
to decide which is best for each application & I'd like to be able to move
data between different implementations (i.e. both P21 &
P28).
Also, given the initial issue, just because one might
exchange data using XML, it does not necessarily mean that the implementation
has not been based upon Express. Personally, I
consider the Express (model) to be the master copy here while the XML (model) is
a derivative, rather than the other way around, although others will/may
disagree.
Well,
these are my views & if nothing else, this debate does bring out into the
open some questions (good ones), and our mis-conceptions that we all
probably need to be aware of so there is better understanding of where we are
going with all this!
Kind
regards,
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: David
Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
Sent: 09 June 2004
16:09
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW:
Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition
2)
So the plan is to use
OASIS to publish DEXs as EXPRESS? I find that quite at odds with everything
else that happens in OASIS. From their Web site:
“SGML
Open
OASIS was founded in 1993 under the name SGML Open as a consortium of
vendors and users devoted to developing guidelines for interoperability among
products that support the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). OASIS
changed its name in 1998 to reflect an expanded scope of technical work,
including the Extensible Markup Language (XML) and other related
standards.”
which leads one to
believe OASIS standards *must*
be XML-based. I’ll watch this space, but as I said earlier, IMHO not focusing
the PLCS TC on XML is really is missing a significant opportunity. For
example, you’ll get no interaction with any other TCs by using EXPRESS instead
of XML (e.g. you can’t talk EXPRESS with the UBL or ebXML
people).
Cheers,
David
-----Original
Message-----
From: Mason,
Howard (UK)
[mailto:howard.mason@baesystems.com]
Sent: 09 June
2004 17:00
To: David Price;
plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
The logic is based on
incomplete background.
Just to be clear, the
OASIS PLCS TC was formed to develop the Data EXchange sets for PLCS, based on
the ISO 10303-239 standard, and providing feedback to the standard if
required. A clear liaison has been established between the two
organisations to emphasise this relationship. OASIS was chosen as the
host for the continuing work in order to avoid the cost of continuing the PLCS
inc consortium, on the grounds of administrative convenience, rather than
XML.
Just as with STEP,
one possible implementation form for the DEX EXPRESS models is the XML schema
mapping. Part 21 files can be generated just as easily, and will be
required by some of the participants.
-----Original
Message-----
From: David
Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
Sent: 09 June
2004 16:32
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] FW: Question to AP
owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)
|
*** WARNING *** This mail has
originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or
the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
|
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
********************************************************************
This
email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient
and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient
please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should
not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its
contents to any other
person.
********************************************************************
|
|