Re: [ubl-ndrsc] URGENT: Containership of series of like elements

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

I think your concern is warranted.
I don't remember us discussing "Details". We may have forgotten about
its silent presence there...
I would agree to the need to submit your version of the proposal as you
sent it, and us taking up the question separately later.

Eduardo

"Eve L. Maler" wrote:

> I have a feeling that I buried my questions and issues too far down in
> my response to the meeting minutes from this week.  This message
> highlights the questions; I'd like to ask for an IMMEDIATE
> response/reaction, so that the proposal can proceed on the ubl-comment
> list in a timely fashion:
>
> >> The NDR SC worked on the wording of the Containership proposal and
> >> puts forward the following:
> >>
> >> The NDR SC advocates the use of containers for the following reasons:
> >>
> >> * having the flexibility to extend content models using XSD
> >> * for efficient use of existing XML tools and technologies (e.g. XPath
> >> etc.)
> >> * general issues of clarity and usability
> >>
> >>
> >> The NDR SC wishes to put forth the following rule for containership
> >> for feedback from participants on the ubl-comment list. This proposal
> >> merely touches on part of the wider containership issue. Please note
> >> that this diverges from the modelling in the current distribution OP65.
> >>
> >> A group of like elements constitutes a model element in its own right.
> >> The type of the containing element has a relationship to the type of
> >> the contained element.  The name of the container Type  uses the type
> >> name of the contained element and adds the word "List".
> >>
> >> Here is an example of the proposed model:
> >>
> >> The Order object class has a property called LineItemList.
> >> LineItemList is an instance of the object class called LineItemList.
> >> A LineItemList contains one or more instances of object class LineItem.
> >>
> >> The dictionary entry name for this property LineItemList is
> >> Order.LineItemList.LineItemList.
> >
> >
> > This assumes that we are no longer using "Details" in the position of a
> > representation term, but instead the type of the property.  I agree with
> > this idea in principle, but did this get discussed as a separate item
> > and agreed to?  Conflating the type-as-RT issue with containership of
> > series of like items -- especially since 0pt65 emphatically doesn't
> > follow this type-as-RT rule -- may be very confusing to reviewers.
> >
> >> When the  existing naming rules are applied the resultant XML element
> >> name would be LineItemList.
> >>
> >> Consequently, you have the freedom to choose a property term that
> >> differs from the representation term to accomodate elements that might
> >> be named as follows:
> >> Dictionary Entry Name = Order.Accepted.LineItemList with an XML
> >> element name of AcceptedLineItemList.
> >
> >
> > This isn't how our existing naming rules work (I thought).  We assume in
> > our rules that "Details" is the RT, and "Details" always gets dropped --
> > but if the RT is something else (at the aggregate level), we don't say
> > whether it gets dropped.
>
> I feel that my concern over "Details" in the RT position is really
> important.  Would the intent of the NDR group's work this week be harmed
> if we were to go back to our "normal" assumption about Details as an RT,
> and then take up that question separately later?
>
> My specific proposal is to submit the following text to the ubl-comment
> list, rather than the text that appeared in the minutes.  Mostly I have
> removed the discussion of "Order.Accepted.LineItemList" (I have also
> incorporated Mike G.'s corrections to the code examples).  Note that an
> element such as <AcceptedLineItemList> could still be created using the
> existing naming rules, with "Accepted" as the property qualified and
> "LineItemList" as the property term, which is why I was able to leave
> such an element in the code example below.
>
>                         *               *               *
>
> The NDR SC advocates the use of containers (elements that group and
> associate a selection of subelements) for the following reasons:
>
> * having the flexibility to extend content models using XSD
> * for efficient use of existing XML tools and technologies (e.g.
>    XPath etc.)
> * general issues of clarity and usability
>
> The NDR SC wishes to put forth the following rule for containership for
>   feedback from participants on the ubl-comment list. This proposal merely
> touches on part of the wider containership issue. Please note that this
> diverges from the modelling in the current distribution OP65.
>
> A group of like elements constitutes a model element in its own right.
> The type of the containing element has a relationship to the type of the
> contained element.  The name of the container type uses the type name of
> the contained element and adds the word "List".
>
> Here is an example of the proposed model:
>
> The Order object class has a property called LineItemList. LineItemList
> is an instance of the object class called LineItemList.  A LineItemList
> contains one or more instances of object class LineItem.
>
> The dictionary entry name for this property LineItemList is
> Order.LineItemList.Details.
>
> When the existing naming rules are applied the resultant XML element
> name would be LineItemList.
>
> Here are the XML instances for these two examples
>
> Example 1.
> <LineItemList>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
> </LineItemList>
>
> Note that LineItemList is of type LineItemList.
>
> Example 2.
> <AcceptedLineItemList>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
>      <LineItem>...</LineItem>
> </AcceptedLineItemList>
>
> Note that here also the type of AcceptedLineItemList is LineItemList.
>
>                         *               *               *
>
> Again, let me ask you folks to respond as soon as possible to ensure
> that we don't delay in going forward with our plan to ask for
> ubl-comment advice.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Eve
>
> --
> 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>

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