E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files

[Jochen Haenisch]

Well, maybe times have changed ... - we would like to have such a set of
test files!
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:	Phil Spiby [SMTP:Phil.Spiby at eurostep.com]
> Sent:	8. mai 2002 17:47
> To:	edbark at nist.gov
> Cc:	Hans Karsten Dahl; wg11 at steptools.com; Hendrix, Thomas E; Arne Tøn
> Subject:	RE: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
> 
> Ed,
> 
> I think we are in violent agreement!
> My view of syntax is "a closed collection of schemas used to define a
> model
> for a particular purpose".
> I also came to the conclusion that the language version id is now looking
> like a parser invocation option and could probably be removed.
> 
> If this is the case then we have to assume that all schemas will be parsed
> against the latest version of EXPRESS.
> 
> Phil
> 
> PS. To go back to my CADDETC roots ...
> I would like then to see a standard set of test files made publicly
> available, which is used to test EXPRESS parsers, so that users can feel
> confident about the EXPRESS toolkits they are using. I doubt if that will
> happen though because the last time I tried to suggest that at EUG'95
> there
> was no interest from either the user community or the vendor community.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark at nist.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:55 PM
> > To: Phil.Spiby at eurostep.com
> > Cc: Hans Karsten Dahl; wg11 at steptools.com; Hendrix, Thomas E; Arne Tøn
> > Subject: Re: E2 to E1 SHTOLO test files
> >
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > You and I are not quite communicating.  I also have respect for Pascal's
> > position.  But at the end of your message, you said:
> >
> > > My view is now that we should either have one language version
> > identifier
> > > for a syntax, or none at all and assume that everything obeys edition
> 2.
> >
> > The problem is, as Jochen and I have said, that we do not have a
> > definition
> > of "syntax".  By "syntax", do you mean "all the Express schemas you
> need"?
> > I interpret any other definition to mean "every schema is (implicitly or
> > explicitly) labeled with a language version id", which is Peter's
> > position.
> >
> > To make my position clear, if your definition of "syntax" is "all
> > the Express
> > schemas you need", then I agree with your position as stated above.
> >
> > (What is not clear to me is how a syntax with that definition can be
> > "labelled", which is, I think, implicit in Pascal's position.  Where
> would
> > that language-version-id physically appear?  It can only appear at the
> > beginning of the "syntax".  So if I cobble multiple Express files
> > together
> > to make a "syntax" for a parser run, at most one of them can have a
> > language-version-id in it, and that one has to appear first.  By the
> time
> > I have arranged that, the language-version-id has become a parser
> > invocation option.  I only know where to put it for a long-form schema
> --
> > the language-version-id labels the schema and the schema = the syntax.)
> >
> > -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."
> >