Status of Part28

[Pascal Huau]

Dear (acting) WG11 convenor,


In October 2001, we exchanged some emails about the lack of clear status of Part28 document and about the lack of answers to issues raised on an intermediate working draft of this part (WG11 N173).

>From that date, I have received no other answer about these issues and the status of Part28 keeps on being unclear to me.

So, as Myrtle Beach approaches and in preparation of WG11 meetings, I resend my whole list of questions:


I) Project management issues:
- do you have any indication from the project leader about the planned dates for the release of ISO/TS 10303-28?
- can/should we still consider that there will be a ISO/TS 10303-28 document (resulting from the resolutions of issues on the balloted CDTS) ?
- who is the actual or acting project leader of ISO/TS 10303-28 (the guy who signs off)?
- who is the actual or acting editor of the document ISO/TS 10303-28 (the guy who signs off)?
- what is the latest WG11 document for ISO/TS 10303-28?


II) Editorial/technical issues on the document WG11 N173 :

1 - there is no information about the element DOCTYPE:
    - is it mandatory? For all the bindings?
    - what is its required content?
    - what is the meaning of the value SYSTEM found in the examples?

2 - there is no information about the meaning of the symbols ?, *, +, %  in the specification of the elements (e.g. see 6.1). In comparison to P21 where all grammar syntax elements are explained, this is considered as a lack in P28.

3 - OSEB: it is not clear how an entity that has several supertypes shall be processed when they inherit, from their supertypes, attributes that have the same name

4 - OSEB: it is not clear whether a value of a derived attribute or of an inverse attribute shall or shall not be provided in XML data files. Add a subclause in §9.9 about that

5 - OSEB: it is not clear whether a value shall or shall not be provided in XML data files for Where rules or Unique rules. Add a subclause in §9.9 about that.

6 - OSEB: it is not clear how an instance of an entity shall be encoded when this entity has a derived attribute, inherited from a supertype
    - How shall the value of the derived attribute be encoded?
    - shall a value be provided for the attribute of the supertype?

7 - OSEB: it is not clear how an attribute value that is an empty aggregate shall be encoded (e.g. if the value of a inverse attribute is to be exported)
    - shall the attribute be present or not? (NB: there may be a problem with the #REQUIRED in the !ATTLIST of aggregate types)
    - how the empty collection shall be represented? enpty string ""?
    
8 - annexes E and G deal with about the same topic (URN). They should be merged in one annex.

9 - annex E: the name of the AIM schema of AP203 is config_control_design (without _schema)

10 - annex E: the way an Express schema is identified is not satisfactory as the concept of version is not so clear (becuase intermediate drafts, TCs and amendments need also to be considered. 
An Express schema should only be identified by its ASN1 registration code and Part28 should specify:

urn:iso10303-28:p28_binding/iso_standard-isonum/schema identifier/schema_name


11 - §10.3 - The meaning and the structure of the element !NOTATION should be explained

12 - §10.3 - The meaning and the structure of the element !ENTITY should be explained, especially because of the name of the element which has a precise meaning in ISO 10303-11.

13 - according to annex E and annex G:
    - use of "urn:iso10303-28:osb/" before a schema name should be replaced by "urn:iso10303-28:oseb/" in the whole P28 (NB: another solution would be to change the specification of p28_binding in annex E)
    - occurrences of urn:iso10303-28:osb:osb are wrong

14 - OSEB (§9.9.9): the line
    #40 = A(Pipe(P1-1));
is wrong and should be replaced by
    #40 = A(#50);
    #50 = PIPE('P1-1');

15 - annex J. 
This annex, informative, contains an instanciation example.
But instead of having chosen a simple one, showing main encoding principles, a big one has been selected. The result is that this annex contains more than 100 pages of unreadable and uncommented text.
So, this annex presently completely misses its purpose of facilitating understanding of P28 specifications.
Could we get a simpler, sensibly-sized and commented example?


Best regards,

Pascal Huau
Association GOSET
107,111 avenue Georges Clemenceau
92000 Nanterre
FRANCE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.steptools.com/pipermail/wg11/attachments/20020218/2c6563b3/attachment.html