E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
Phil Spiby
Phil.Spiby at eurostep.com
Tue May 7 17:16:49 EDT 2002
Folks,
I remember the discussion with Peter etc. but my understanding was that
there was no change agreed to the DAM.
My personal understanding of this situation, which is open to dispute, is
the following:
EXPRESS has deliberately avoided the use of the term file, since to
acknowledge files, we then need a means of defining relationships between
files, like #include etc.
The concept of file is probably wrong if you are considering an interactive
development environment (this was an aims of some of the original EXPRESS
committee).
The way we tried to get around this was to introduce the idea that some
mechanism would enable either an environment or a collection of files to be
dealt with as a complete unit, and that this complete unit would obey the
rules of the Syntax and allow a scope for schema names to exist within.
Although much of these concepts were removed in the run-up to
standardisation in 1994 we still have some legacies in the standard with
keywords such as MODEL and END_MODEL, and the Note under 10.3.13.
It is my belief that this schema aggregation should all obey the same
language syntax, and this is why I think the syntax conforms to a single
language version. If we consider the now almost dead Edition3 then Peter's
proposal would allow some schemas to correspond to Edition 1, some to
edition2 and perhaps some to edition3, i.e. different schemas would have to
be conformance checked against different standards ISO 10303-11 for editions
1 and 2 and ISO 20303 for edition 3!.
I understand that Peter wants this so that he can easily concatenate a
number of files together then parse the result, and I have some sympathy for
this approach. But I feel that if any one schema is to be parsed against
edition two then the whole collection should be parsed at that level.
Edition two is, by design and SC4 ruling, upwardly compatible with edition
one!
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg11 at steptools.com [mailto:owner-wg11 at steptools.com]On
> Behalf Of Jochen Haenisch
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 5:24 PM
> To: 'Wilson, Peter R'
> Cc: Hans Karsten Dahl; 'wg11 at steptools.com'; Hendrix, Thomas E; Arne Tøn
> Subject: RE: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
>
>
> Peter,
>
> your proposal may well make sense! I just referred to what I think is
> specified in the DAM so far. It will probably be quite common to generate
> longforms out of mixes of e1 and e2 shortforms.
>
> However, do you think that it is necessary to include schemas according to
> different Express versions in the same file? Should it not be enough to
> specify the language identifier once only in the top of a file?
>
> Agreed, the LRM does not relate the production term "syntax" to files. We
> should probably be more explicit in e2?!? There seems to be a source for
> misunderstandings.
>
> I do not think that there is anything related in the issues resolutions.
>
> Best regards, Jochen.
> ____________________________________________________________
> Jochen Haenisch E-mail:
> Jochen.Haenisch at epmtech.jotne.com
> EPM Technology AS Home of the EXPRESS Data Manager
> P.O Box 6629 Etterstad Tel: Int + 47 23 17 17 26;
> mobile: Int + 47
> 922 60 274
> N-0607 Oslo Fax: Int + 47 23 17 17 01
> Norway Web:
> http://www.epmtech.jotne.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wilson, Peter R [SMTP:peter.r.wilson at boeing.com]
> > Sent: 7. mai 2002 17:55
> > To: 'Jochen Haenisch'
> > Cc: 'wg11 at steptools.com'; Hendrix, Thomas E; Wilson, Peter R
> > Subject: RE: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
> >
> > Jochen,
> >
> > I had a discussion at Myrtle Beach with Phil Spiby on the
> question of
> > putting the language_version_id before each schema. As far as I
> remember,
> > Phil said that the assumption was that the entire EXPRESS model would be
> > in
> > a single file and that the language_version_id applied to the file. In
> > other
> > words, the syntax production applies to a file. The IR53 model is in
> > several
> > files, and hence the multiple occurrences of the
> language_version_id. The
> > LRM makes no mention of file(s) containing EXPRESS code.
> >
> > What happens if a model is partly Edition 1 (e.g., the traditional
> > IRs)
> > and partly Edition 2 (e.g., new IRs like 52 and 53)?
> >
> > I think that a language_version_id should be associable with an
> > individual schema, not just with this unexplained concept of a file. If
> > you
> > like, change the syntax production to read:
> > syntax = [ language_version_id ] schema_decl { [language_version_id ]
> > schema_decl } .
> >
> > Regards
> > Peter W.
> >
> > PS. I have not yet had a chance to look at Phil's latest list
> of issues to
> > see if this is in there or not.
> >
> > Dr Peter R. Wilson
> > Boeing Commercial Airplanes
> > PO Box 3707, MS 6H-AF, Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > (Package Delivery: MS 6H-AF, 1601 E. Valley Frontage Road, Renton, WA
> > 98055)
> > Tel: (425) 237-3506, Fax: (425) 237-3428
> > Email: peter.r.wilson at boeing.com
> > --------------------------------
> > Any opinions expressed above are personal;
> > they shall not be construed as representative of any organisation.
> > --------------------------------
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jochen Haenisch [mailto:Jochen.Haenisch at epmtech.jotne.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:43 PM
> > > To: 'Hendrix, Thomas E'
> > > Cc: 'Peter Wilson'; Arne Tn
> > > Subject: RE: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you, Tom!
> > >
> > > I think there is a syntax error in the P53-file: the language
> > > identifier
> > > appears twice, once in the beginning of the file (where it
> > > should be) and
> > > once right after the END_SCHEMA statement of the
> > > product_analysis_schema.
> >
> > PW: More properly stated, it is before the SCHEMA analysis_schema
> > PW: declaration (which happens to follow the product_analysis_schema).
> >
> > > Else it looks OK. I attach the corrected file.
> > >
> > > Concerning this P53 file: which of the schemas shall we
> > > produce longforms
> > > for, only the product_analysis_schema?
> > >
> > > Best regards, Jochen.
> > >
> > > <<ir53_from_PW_JH.exp>>
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > Jochen Haenisch E-mail:
> > > Jochen.Haenisch at epmtech.jotne.com
> > > EPM Technology AS Home of the EXPRESS Data Manager
> > > P.O Box 6629 Etterstad Tel: Int + 47 23 17 17
> > > 26; mobile: Int + 47
> > > 922 60 274
> > > N-0607 Oslo Fax: Int + 47 23 17 17 01
> > > Norway Web:
> > > http://www.epmtech.jotne.com
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hendrix, Thomas E [SMTP:thomas.e.hendrix at boeing.com]
> > > > Sent: 6. mai 2002 19:39
> > > > To: Anna Wasmer (E-mail); Blair Downie (E-mail); Jochen Haenisch
> > > > (E-mail)
> > > > Cc: Guenter Staub (E-mail); Rob Bodington (E-mail); Phil Rosche
> > > > (E-mail); Phil Spiby (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
> > > >
> > > > Dear all:
> > > >
> > > > Attached are two files containing Express short form schemas, that
> > > > incorporate constructs from part 11 Amendment 1, to be published:
> > > >
> > > > 1. express_e2_shtolo_sf, a contrived file with several
> > > schemas. This file
> > > > has been compiled without errors by two compilers: EPM; and Expi, an
> > > > experimental parser written by Peter Wilson for Express language
> > > > development. It has also been reviewed by several at NIST.
> > > >
> > > > 2. IR53_from_PW which is a draft version of part 53 schema,
> > > provided by
> > > > Peter Wilson.
> > > >
> > > > I have attached for reference the White Paper "Guidance for
> > > generating
> > > > long-form EXPRESS schemas for all editions of EXPRESS"
> > > dated 2001-08-27.
> > > > This is to be the basis of an Annex to Amendment 1. NOTE
> > > My understanding
> > > > is that some technical issues were raised since then and resolved in
> > > > Myrtle
> > > > Beach. I am told the current draft of Part 11 Amendment 1
> > > is in the hands
> > > > of
> > > > Phil Spiby.
> > > >
> > > > At the PDES, Inc Offsite in Asheville it was agreed that:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Tom will create/identify some E2 short forms for testing.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Each participant will generate long forms ( for all
> > > schemas defined in
> > > > the files) , per Part 11 Amendment 1 Annex (to be published).
> > > >
> > > > 3. Long forms will be sent to Anna Wasmer, and copy me and
> > > Phil Rosche.
> > > > Anna, please send your long form to me.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Anna will use PDTec in-house software to generate
> > > pair-wise comparison
> > > > reports of all long forms,
> > > >
> > > > 5. Anna will send out reports to all.
> > > >
> > > > 6. We all review the discrepancies and throw darts at each other.
> > > >
> > > > 7. Repeat as required.
> > > >
> > > > Please proceed. My goal is to complete a round of this
> > > before May 15
> > > > (PDES,
> > > > Inc TAC).
> > > >
> > > > I have been maintaining the express test files at
> > > >
> > > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/stepmod/stepmod
> > /doc/express
> > > -c
> > > heck/. I also plan to send them to Dave Loffredo to post on WG11
> > website
> > > when I am pretty sure they are stable.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > Thomas E. Hendrix
> > > Phone: 425-237-3368
> > > thomas.e.hendrix at boeing.com
> > >
> > >
> > > <<e2shtolo_v01.html>> <<express_e2_shtolo_sf.exp>>
> > <<ir53_from_PW.exp>>
> > > << File: e2shtolo_v01.html >> << File:
> express_e2_shtolo_sf.exp >> <<
> > > File: ir53_from_PW.exp >>
>
More information about the wg11
mailing list