Part28: schema population text from Part 21 Annex F

[David Price]

Martin,

That's fine except that Dave may not have the chance. Geneva often creates
the IS with no SC4 involvement unless there are ballot comment raised
pointing out errors in the FDIS. Perhaps a ballot comment, instead of a
SEDS, would be the right thing to submit?

DP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg11 at steptools.com [mailto:owner-wg11 at steptools.com]On
Behalf Of Martin Hardwick
Sent: 20 July 2001 22:10
To: edbark at cme.nist.gov
Cc: Pascal Huau; WG11
Subject: Re: Part28: schema population text from Part 21 Annex F



Ed,

There is no need to submit a SEDS. David Loffredo
is going to clarify the definition by adding a
sentence to the text when he makes the final IS
document for ed2.

Martin

At 06:05 PM 7/16/2001 -0400, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>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."