[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting
The whole "what to name containers" discussion is interesting. I think I have a way (borrowed from the C type system) for resolving this. It's a generalization of the existing naming rules. We currently have ObjectClass.PropertyTerm.RepresentationTerm -- tripartite naming. RepresentationTerm specifies the type of the property. What I believe we're running up against here is that our type system (as it stands) is insufficient to model what in C is called "derived types" and what in C++ is generalized to "parameterized types". An example of a derived type in C is array. In order to do typechecking on an array you have to know what it is an array "of". Properly, you need to specify something like "array of int" or "array of contact". C++ generalized this idea to parameterized types. In C++ you can define a "generic type" e.g. a List<X> where X is the kind of thing to be contained in instances of this type. So List<int> is a type of list that can hold an int. So I'm thinking that for our tripartite naming we (simply) need to expand the capabilities of RepresentationTerm to (at a minimum) support our container (derived) types. I suggest two container types initially: sequence and set. List has too much of a data structure connotation for me, whereas sequence is more abstract(leaving the door open to various implementations). Precedent here in the Standard Template Library (STL) for C++ and the newer Java JDK 1.4 abstractions around strings -- the new character sequence interface. So I would suggest LineItemSequence for the example from the minutes. I guess Set and Sequence would have to become reserved words in our tiny element naming scheme. If we call the non-container types we've been dealing with to date something like "direct" to distinguish them from derived types (containers, parameterizable on a direct type), we could essentially expand RepresentationTerm to be something like: RepresentationTerm : DirectType | DirectType + DerivedType DerivedType : "Sequence" | "Set" So parsing LineItemSequence, "LineItem" is the DirectType and "Sequence" is the DerivedType. Together they constitue a RepresentationTerm. This frees you, should you need two such sequences at a particular level to distinguish them via their PropertyTerm -- just the way we do with non-containers. I love it when things fit together! -Bill -----Original Message----- From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: ubl-ndrsc Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting Minutes for 14 August 2002 UBL NDR SC meeting 1. Roll call (quorum is 8) * Bill Burcham * Mavis Cournane regrets * Mark Crawford YES * Fabrice Desré regrets * Matt Gertner regrets * Arofan Gregory YES * Jessica Glace YES * Michael Grimley YES * Eduardo Gutentag YES * Eve Maler YES * Sue Probert YES (joined y:33) * Lisa Seaburg YES * Gunther Stuhec regrets * Paul Thorpe regrets * Chris Ketels awol We achieved quorum once Sue joined, and approved previous weeks' minutes at that time. 2. Acceptance of minutes of previous meeting 31 July 2002 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200207/msg00026.html 7 August 2002 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00011.html Accepted. 3. Adoption of agenda/schedule planning Adopted. August 14: - Regrets from Paul Thorpe, Mavis Cournane, Matt Gertner; Sue Probert may be late - NDR review needed on LCSC distribution - NDR document review - OO and containership papers and methodology implications - Date/time: OO implications and comments received - Finish embedded documentation decisions - Identifier references - Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements August 21: - Jessica and Mike might have to leave early - Top-level message/element naming - Continue reviewing NDR draft 15 Section 10 - All the deferred stuff from this week (need Gunther present!) August 28: - Regrets from Eve - NDR document review September 4: - Regrets from Paul Thorpe September 11: - Regrets from Paul Thorpe, possibly from folks in Geneva - NDR document review September 18: - Regrets from Gunther Stuhec - Approve documents for review distribution #3 September 25: - No meeting; work on other UBL tasks instead October 1-4: - F2F #5 in Burlington, MA, USA - Everyone should try to reserve the Burlington Marriott A NDR document improvements (review every two weeks) A+ Embedded documentation NEARLY DONE A Code lists IN PROGRESS A Dates and times IN PROGRESS A Nested supplementary components IN PROGRESS A Identifier references and whether to pass content by reference A- Local vs. global elements B+ Containership IN PROGRESS B Updating guiding principles B Modnamver URN DONE B Modnamver schema location IN PROGRESS B Referencing of content, e.g. for attachments C Facets C Wildcards/open content C Nillability C Aggregation of similar information for XPath V1.0 addressing 4. Action item review Lisa: - With Arofan, update the embedded documentation paper according to August 7 decisions. Mavis: - Update the issues spreadsheet with Eve's comments. - Amend NDR document to add example code for Period. - NEW: Update NDR draft 15 with comments from our August 14 comments. - NEW: Review comments that have come in on the NDR document for the August 28 meeting. Eve: - Finish draft of code list document. IN PROGRESS - Send 0pt65 schema comments to LC SC. DONE - NEW: See if Mavis might be available for August 28 call. - NEW: Send draft principle for "generation of code" to the NDR list. Gunther: - Write content referencing paper. IN PROGRESS - Review the date/time comments and recommend dispositions. DONE - Send date/time NDR snippets to Mavis. IN PROGRESS - With Arofan, prepare samples of how to handle second-tier attributes. IN PROGRESS - Bring the donkey to Burlington! Bill: - NEW: Update modnamver and propose schema location solution. IN PROGRESS Jessica: - NEW: Review 0pt65 release draft. Mark: - NEW: Look into readiness of planned August 16 LC release. 5. Other SC reports LCSC discussed in #6 below. 6. NDR review needed on LCSC distribution - Tim McGrath says the near-final draft will be ready Thursday morning for final review; comments are needed within 36 hours. We (Lisa in particular) are concerned that the quality and completeness of the release may not be up to par. 7. Review latest NDR document http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-15 .doc Comments: - We need to say who the audiences are for this document, and segregate the rules and guidelines per audience (e.g. the perl script vs. people writing external modules). Ray Seddigh had commented on this in Minneapolis, and would be a good source of suggestions. - Do we need a new, emerging guiding principle on "generation of code"? Wherever we plan to generate XSD from a model, the model needs enough information -- and the rules need to be deterministic enough -- for the schema generation process to work. We'll try out some wording. - Should Chapter 2, on the metamodel, be changed to reflect the new CCTS work? We think that this shouldn't be updated until a new CCTS draft is put out, but the text (around line 173 in draft 15) should explicitly reference V1.8 of CCTS without requiring people to look at the References section. - It would be great if each succeeding version (other than formal distributions) were to show Track Changes (change bars etc.). - We think the element naming rules need more work around containers for series of like items. The LCSC dropped the container for a series of ListItem elements because its dictionary entry was Order.LineItem.Details, and the truncation rules would turn it into a LineItem element (containing multiple LineItem elements that are technically different by being locally defined), which is wicked confusing. We agreed that we need a new rule for how to name the property term when its contents are a series of like items. We agreed that the ordered/unordered distinction is not particularly important, so we discarded the option of using the word "Set" at all. Our understanding is that multiple qualifiers are going to be allowed under the new CCTS situation. Straw poll: property qualifier property term comments (preferred, acceptable) ListOf LineItem The term is false in this case ListOf LineItems Qualifier stuff too complicated ListOfLineItem p=1 a=0 ListOfLineItems p=0 a=2 LineItemList p=5 a=2 We have a winner! LineItems p=0 a=4 LineItemsList p=0 a=0 We discussed whether LineItemList should use "List" as the term and "LineItem" (or whatever) as the qualifier, but decided that a "naked list" as a object class's property is just too vague a notion. Some examples: Order.LineItemList.Details Item.SubstituteItemIdentifierList.Details Item.PhysicalAttributeList.Details - Section 10 UBL Messages: Bullet #1 (line 552) touches on a rule that's in modnamver but is not yet in the NDR document. Should it appear in two places in the NDR document? Bullet #2 (line 554) is a little ambiguous as it stands. Obviously, different trading communities might extend a UBL purchase order message for their own uses, but it will have the "same business function" as the original one. Bullets #3-4 is similar to the element naming covered in lines 284-285. We need to be more explicit about whether verbs or nouns are meant, and what a "business function" is. - Rules for dictionary entry naming when applying context: We need to say that qualifiers should be added, and how to do that. We deferred all the items below. * * * 8. OO and containership papers and methodology implications OO paper: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00014.html Containership paper: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/p-gregory-containers- 02.doc 9. Date/time: OO implications and comments received Date/time paper: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/p-stuhec-datetime-05. doc Comments from Mike Grimley: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200208/msg00009.html Comments from Bob Miller (already discussed?): http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200207/msg00008.html 10. Finish embedded documentation decisions See last week's minutes for previous decisions and status. - Where to insert all the documentation elements in each XSD construct? - Make sure to at least provide a reference to the code list document, which puts some requirements on documentation. - Need to include rules on which fields need to be present for which XSD constructs. - The UBL schema modules need to incorporate XHTML Basic properly (e.g., declaring its prefix? importing the schema?). - We need to say explicitly what XHTML Basic version number. 11. Identifier references 12. Local qualified vs. local unqualified vs. global elements 13. Adjourn Adjourned at z:17. -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 883 5917 XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives eve.maler @ sun.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC