Part28: schema population text from Part 21 Annex F

[David Price]

Ed,

Your SEDS against P21 would bring it in line with P22 as well. In P22,
schema_instances collect sdai_models and then it says a reference to
anything outside the schema_instance is treated as if the reference was
unset.

It makes sense for these algorithms to be the same so that P21/P28/P22
implementations can use the same constraint validation engine.

Cheers,
David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg11 at steptools.com [mailto:owner-wg11 at steptools.com]On
Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: 16 July 2001 23:05
To: Martin Hardwick
Cc: Pascal Huau; WG11
Subject: Re: Part28: schema population text from Part 21 Annex F


Martin,

Thanks. This is the information I needed.

Martin Hardwick wrote:

> Part 21 ed2 Annex F is not in error.
>
> The checking algorithm operates in two phases:
>
> 1. Define the population be picking the sections containing
>    the instances to be checked.
> 2. Evaluate the EXPRESS constraints against the defined
>    population.
>
> Transitive references are not allowed to make sure that the
> population to be tested in precisely defined. If you start
> hunting for transitive references then the population will
> become unlimited (what about USEDIN etc).

Yes. This was the other possible interpretation of the intent of Annex F.
If this is what was intended, then the text I
produced 10 days ago provides the analogous text for Part 28, and I don't
need to change it.

Anent Part 21 Ed.2, however, this simply results in a different SEDS.  The
current text of F.2.3 makes no mention of the
handling of references made from the entity instances that are themselves
included by reference.  It should say that where such
references refer to instances outside of the population, their values will
be treated as unset.  (This is the analog to the
wording of F.2.2 and to the proposed wording for Part 28.)  And the text
should contain a Note that explicitly says what Martin
writes above, and preferably an Example that contains an "unset" attribute
value or UsedIn result.

So, from Martin's contribution, I understand that
- I am to make no change to the proposed text of the "valid populations"
Annex for Part 28; and
- I am to write up a different SEDS for Part 21.

Does the committee agree?
Are there any other errors or bad examples in the proposed text?

Thanks,
-Ed

--
Edward J. Barkmeyer                       Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260          Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260               FAX: +1 301-975-4482

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."