[wg11] Follow the process for Part 28

[David Price]

Hello Martin,

On:

> What we hope is that the good ideas of others will make these solutions
> even better and we do not want to cut them off by changing the agreed
> process.

I this response, and Ed's for that matter, quite confusing given the current
state of affairs. There's nothing sinister or against ISO policy going on
here.

Quoting Ed Barkmeyer in response to Mike Ward's report of a problem with uos
and substitution groups: "There is no way to conform to the CD and get this
right.  The question is: what set of CD changes do you expect after the
ballot?" So, a "stick our heads in the sand" approach isn't really viable.
We need this forum to discuss issues and, sometimes, even provisional
workarounds or else all P28 testing comes to an end.

With respect to the larger questions, with no meetings in Ft. Lauderdale or
Bath, unfortunately the exploder has become the only avenue for discussions
between people interested in P28. While, we too are trying to getting
something standardized as soon as possible, we're also trying to understand
what that should really mean. We are not changing any agreed process by
initiating issue discussions, even the uncomfortable ones, on this exploder.
Everyone realizes they are just discussions, not agreed ballot resolutions.
So, I don't share your concern that SC4 experts will feel cut off by
discussions on an email exploder.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wg11-bounces at steptools.com [mailto:wg11-bounces at steptools.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin Hardwick
> Sent: 20 May 2004 19:51
> To: wg11 at steptools.com; xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> Subject: [wg11] Follow the process for Part 28
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> STEP Tools has several issues with Part 28 including some that
> are quite fundamental.
> 
> However, now is not a good time for us to raise these issues because
> this is when the ideas and opinions of others should be heard.
> 
> We do not think the team should start the resolution process before
> all the comments have been received because this will discourage others
> by making them wonder if their comments are going to be considered.
> 
> We have confidence that a Part 28 will be defined for STEP and that it
> will be similar to the solutions we are developing for AP-238 (STEP-NC)
> because these solutions are making STEP programming an order of magnitude
> easier.
> 
> What we hope is that the good ideas of others will make these solutions
> even better and we do not want to cut them off by changing the agreed
> process.
> 
> Martin Hardwick
> President STEP Tools, Inc.
> 
> 
> At 12:45 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, David Price wrote:
> 
> >All,
> >
> >
> >
> >Heidi asked for any early comments on Part 28 to be raised on these
> exploders given it looks like the team won t have a meeting in Bath. So,
> here s a start. The big ones first.
> >
> >
> >
> >In conversations on this exploder and in private, I ve heard comments
> that lead me to believe some portion of the Part 28 team now thinks that
> so much configurability in an ISO standard mapping from EXPRESS to XML
> Schema is not necessary.  I share in this view on the basis that a single,
> consistent mapping for ISO standard EXPRESS schemas is better than many
> different mappings developed for individual APs& at least for the same
> usage scenario such as data exchange. We spent a lot of energy in SC4 to
> get AP-interoperability that should not be thrown away.
> >
> >
> >
> >Is there support for removing or vastly reducing and simplifying the ISO
> standard EXPRESS to XML Schema configuration capability in Part 28? For
> example, could we agree on an EXPRESS to XML schema mapping for each usage
> scenario (e.g. data exchange vs. SOAP) and standardize those instead?
> >
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >Phone +44 207 704 0499
> >
> >Mobile +44 7788 561308
> >
> >8 Highbury Place, Flat 5
> >
> >London, UK
> >
> >N5 1QZ
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wg11 mailing list
> wg11 at steptools.com
> http://lists.steptools.com/mailman/listinfo/wg11