Re: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@sun.com>]

8) Assuming that we decide to start from the Vienna document, are we
going to concentrate solely/mainly in Context rules (as I believe we decided
at our last meeting, but I'm not 100% sure), or are we going to look at
the Assembly rules too?

9) Assuming that we decide to start from the Vienna document, what is the
list of features in the Context rules that people think are broken?

<Aside>  I don't understand question 1 in point (7) below.

Question 1: "should we align the names of the
context tags so they match the tags in the schema language?"

I don't understand what tags in the schema language are to be matched.

</Aside>

Matthew Gertner wrote:

> Welcome to the context methodology list. I'd like to kick off discussion by
> establishing a list of issues that need resolution in order to finalize the
> specification. I'd like to stick to gathering issues for a few days before
> starting discussion on these. So unless someone objects, I would suggest
> that we reserve this thread for suggestions of new issues, rather than
> discussion on the issues themselves. I'll split all of the retained issues
> into separate threads to kickoff discussion towards the end of next week.
> 
> 1) Do we consider the "Document Assembly and Context Rules" document from
> Vienna (v1.04) to be the starting point for our work, which we will be
> refining? Or so we want to start from a clean slate and pull in input from
> the document as needed? The question here is whether people consider the
> Vienna work to be deeply broken in some way or whether it simply needs to be
> finalized.
> 
> 2) Should XSD derivation be used when context rules are applied: always,
> sometimes or never? In others, what is the derivation relationship, if any,
> between contextual components and the base components that yielded them?
> 
> 3) Are we assuming an additive methodology based on minimal components, a
> subtractive methodology based on maximal components or a combination of
> both?
> 
> 4) Should the transformation be represented as an adhoc XML document (like
> the Vienna approach) or using some standard transformation language (such as
> XSLT)?
> 
> 5) How do we determine how hierarchical context driver values are matched?
> For example, when does "France" match "Europe" (since Europe contains
> France) and when does it match only "France" exactly? The Vienna document
> uses the "Apply" attribute for this purpose

> 
> 
> 6) Do we still need assembly rules? There has been discussion that the
> construction of larger BIEs from core components using standard schema
> languages eliminates the need for a separate assembly language.
> 
> 7) Syntax of the context rules in general. Assuming that we decide to use a
> canonical syntax language (probably XSD), should we align the names of the
> context tags so they match the tags in the schema language? Can we handle
> all of the various constructs (global types, local types, local elements,
> etc.) that are retained by the Naming and Design subcommittee? Are any of
> the constructs redundant (e.g. what is the different between "CreateElement"
> and an "Add" tag containing and "Element" tag)?
> 
> This is all the occurred to me, but I'm sure that discussion will lead to
> many other points. If anyone has anything to add, please post to the list
> under this thread.
> 
> Cheers,
> Matt
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (510) 986-3651 x73651
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |