<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Hello WG3 and WG12,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>So far, what I’ve heard from these two teams (and
relayed to the Part 28 team today) is the following:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>2) Exactly what the XML document looks like is not that
important as a high level, model based API will be used.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>4) Interoperability, and therefore the same configuration,
is a high priority for AP233, AP239 and PDM capabilities.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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?</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Cheers,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>David</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Phone +44 20 7704 0499</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Mobile +44 7788 561308</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>8 Highbury Place</span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>, Flat 5</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>London</span></font><font size=2 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> N5 1QZ</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>