Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition 2)

[Martin Hardwick]

All,

In response to David's request below here is a STEP-Manufacturing
perspective:

1. The STEP Manufacturing AP's (AP-219, AP-224, AP-238 and AP-240)
   are already highly inter-operable using P21 technology. High
   level API's have already been written for these AP's.

2. The STEP Manufacturing data is intricate and highly complex. The
   weakness of the existing P21 technology is that the data is hard
   to read and copy so the form of the XML document is MOST IMPORTANT.

3. If a single configuration for all AP's can satisfy the whole
   community then this is better than multiple configurations. However
   the experience of P28 Edition 1 suggests that readable data will
   only be produced if each AP has its own configuration.

4. Much information required to define a configuration is already
   in the mapping tables. The manufacturing AP's are harmonized by
   using the same mappings for the same concept. Therefore, they will
   continue to be inter-operable.


Martin Hardwick
Team Leader Wg3/T24 STEP-Manufacturing

At 04:39 PM 12/2/2003 +0000, David Price wrote:

>Hello WG3 and WG12,
>
> 
>
>We ve been working with the AP233 and AP239 teams on Part 28 Edition 2 and XML Schema. Part 28 E2 introduces a configuration language allowing the production of an XML schema to be tailored for an EXPRESS schema. The tailoring can happen at the global, entity and/or attribute level. The issue that has been raised during the discussions with AP233 and AP239 is if, or how, this capability should be used.
>
> 
>
>I m trying to gather business requirements and technical requirements in this area. If you have requirements or usage scenarios in this area, I d appreciate hearing about them.
>
> 
>
>So far, what I ve heard from these two teams (and relayed to the Part 28 team today) is the following:
>
> 
>
>1) A single configuration to produce a default data exchange XML Schema for both (or all?) APs is required. Some have said they want WG3/SC4 to agree and mandate a single configuration for AP implementation.
>
>2) Exactly what the XML document looks like is not that important as a high level, model based API will be used.
>
>3) The XML schema elements should be recognizable as being derived from the EXPRESS schema, but trying to reflect the EXPRESS structure in XML is less important than simplicity and consistency.
>
>4) Interoperability, and therefore the same configuration, is a high priority for AP233, AP239 and PDM capabilities.
>
>5) The first AP233 and AP239 implementations will be based on the ARM, not the AIM. This may continue to be true for all implementations as well.
>
>6) The PLCS consortium is planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML Schema through OASIS, so they don t expect implementations to be EXPRESS-based.
>
> 
>
>Do other AP teams share these requirements? I agree they are not all completely consistent (ARM v. AIM), but requirements seldom are. If your requirements are different, in what way?
>
> 
>
>Cheers,
>
>David
>
> 
>
>Phone +44 20 7704 0499
>
>Mobile +44 7788 561308
>
>8 Highbury Place, Flat 5
>
>London N5 1QZ
>
>