RE: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues

[Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@schemantix.com>]

I started to write a summary of these points and realized quickly that we
are not as far along in reaching consensus as I assumed, particularly
regarding 2) and 3). I would like to schedule our first official conference
call to discuss these issues and next steps, with the goal of reaching
enough consensus to whack out a first draft of a specification (based on the
ebXML doc) and start testing it with our to-be-written use cases.

Any disagreement? If not, my proposal would be Thursday December 6th at 8AM
PST for 1.5 hours. Please let me know if this would work for you or not.

Cheers,
Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Gertner [mailto:matthew.gertner@schemantix.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:50 PM
> To: 'ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: [ubl-cmsc] Context Methodology Issues
> 
> 
> 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>
>