[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues
For clarification: what I meant by point 7 was that XSD has specific names for various constructs ("element", "complexType", etc.), so we might try to align on these ("addElement", "addComplexType", etc.). Not a big issue but the naming in the context rules dialect doesn't strike me as 100% solid, so this might help. BTW: I'd like to break up the individual threads tomorrow and start into the meat of the discussion, so please send any remaining suggestions for topics today! I can only guess by the lack of much feedback that my list was very comprehensive... :-) Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:43 AM > To: Matthew Gertner > Cc: 'ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: Re: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues > > > 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. | >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC