[wg11] Usage of Part 28 Edition 2
Mason, Howard (UK)
howard.mason at baesystems.com
Wed Jun 9 05:19:42 EDT 2004
Sorry for multiple postings, but this issue seems to cut across several groups.
Part 28 ed 2 is out for CD ballot, and implementation experience seems to be revealing a number of additional requirements - principally for simplicity. In an ideal world, these would have been identified in advance, or at least during consideration of the working drafts leading up to the CD. However, experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.
While we could stick rigidly to the ISO process and wait until the end of the ballot process to consider any of the issues, I believe that the proximity of the Bath meeting allows an opportunity for the pilot users and the developers to discuss the impact of these experiences on the draft and expedite the development of a document that will meet the needs of the SC4 community. This will involve WG3 and WG11 as a minimum, and I suggest that WG11 takes the lead in scheduling a session during the Bath meeting.
I do not believe that such a process would inhibit comments on the current draft = indeed SC4 has often taken the opportunity to address early comments on documents under ballot, in order to expedite delivery. The debate could also serve to inform ballot comments from national bodies.
I do believe that we need to focus on facilitating the exploitation of our information models in an XML world - this objective will not be served if the result is too complicated for general use.
Howard Mason
-----Original Message-----
From: David Price [mailto:david.price at eurostep.com]
Sent: 08 June 2004 17:04
To: wg3 at tc184-sc4.org
Cc: expressIF at tc184-sc4.org; step-imp at steptools.com;
step-manufacturing at steptools.com; wg12 at tc184-sc4.org; xmlsc4 at nist.gov
Subject: RE: Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part
28 Edition 2)
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Although I don't agree a WG3-only discussion is really want we need...in
case you folks follow Gerry's suggestion:
Actually, I don't think it would take too much to "fix" Part 28. Allowing
vastly simplified XML Schemas as an output could likely be accomplished by
making most of the advanced capabilities P28 requires optional and by
allowing the case where an EXPRESS/P28-processor is not in the picture.
Cheers,
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radack, Gerald [mailto:radack at ctcgsc.org]
> Sent: 08 June 2004 16:53
> To: trthurma at rockwellcollins.com; david.price at eurostep.com
> Cc: expressIF at tc184-sc4.org; hardwick at steptools.com; step-
> imp at steptools.com; step-manufacturing at steptools.com; wg12 at tc184-sc4.org;
> wg3 at tc184-sc4.org; xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> Subject: RE: Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28
> Edition 2)
>
> Develop Part 28 edition 3 to satisfy the stated requirements?
>
> Could we have this discussion on a *single* exploder? Cross-posting to
> multiple exploders does not work very well. A lot of exploders reject
> messages posted by people who are not members. And not everybody
> participating in this discussion is on all the exploders (or else why
> would we be posting to multiple exploders in the first place?). So when a
> person clicks "reply all," there is no guarantee that everybody gets the
> message. The procedure should be to send an email to each of the
> exploders saying that a discussion will take place on a specific exploder.
> Then all further traffic should be on that one exploder.
>
> Since the original question was with the regard to the requirements and
> experience of AP projects, WG3 seems to be the best fit. (WG11, as owner
> of Part 28, seems to be the other logical choice, but they were not even
> cross-posted on these messages.) I have set the "reply to" field to be
> wg3 at tc184-sc4.org. Please post replies only to that exploder, and please
> join that exploder if you want to participate in the discussion.
>
> If the discussion gets into planning for a revision project, then maybe
> the discussion should be moved to WG11 at that point.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gerry
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: trthurma at rockwellcollins.com
> > [mailto:trthurma at rockwellcollins.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:24 AM
> > To: david.price at eurostep.com
> > Cc: expressIF at tc184-sc4.org; hardwick at steptools.com;
> > step-imp at steptools.com; step-manufacturing at steptools.com;
> > wg12 at tc184-sc4.org; wg3 at tc184-sc4.org; xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> > Subject: RE: Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema
> > use (Part
> > 28 Edition 2)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Recognizing this,
> > How to go forward is the question.
> > Tom
> >
> > Thomas R. "Tom" Thurman
> > MS 106-183
> > Rockwell Collins Inc.
> > 400 Collins Road N.E.
> > Cedar Rapids Ia, 52498, USA
> > phone:(319)295-2280
> > FAX:(319)295-0654
> > This email and any attachments are confidential to the
> > intended recipient
> > and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> > recipient please
> > delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should
> > not copy it or
> > use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its
> > contents to any other
> > person.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "David Price"
> >
> >
> > <david.price at euro To:
> > <trthurma at rockwellcollins.com>, <hardwick at steptools.com>
> >
> > step.com> cc:
> > <expressIF at tc184-sc4.org>, <step-imp at steptools.com>,
> >
> >
> > <step-manufacturing at steptools.com>, <wg12 at tc184-sc4.org>,
> > <wg3 at tc184-sc4.org>,
> > 06/08/2004 10:06
> > <xmlsc4 at nist.gov>
> >
> > AM Subject: RE:
> > Question to AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part
> > 28 Edition 2)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > We've had the same experience with the P28-based XML Schema
> > that you did.
> > P28 requires the use of XML Schema bits that many of the toolkits have
> > trouble supporting... even XMLSpy can't cope.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: trthurma at rockwellcollins.com
> > [mailto:trthurma at rockwellcollins.com]
> > > Sent: 03 June 2004 22:46
> > > To: hardwick at steptools.com
> > > Cc: david.price at eurostep.com; expressIF at tc184-sc4.org; step-
> > > imp at steptools.com; step-manufacturing at steptools.com;
> > wg12 at tc184-sc4.org;
> > > wg3 at tc184-sc4.org; xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> > > Subject: Re: Question to AP owners/implementors on XML
> > Schema use (Part
> > 28
> > > Edition 2)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin,
> > > As an AP developer, that fits my requirement because then
> > it is FEASIBLE
> > > to
> > > write an application that can read/write the XML.
> > > (I guess I would have to agree with the statement that I am
> > referring to
> > > the Part 21 approach. I meant only that we as AP
> > developers could not
> > > feasibly deliver ONE XML Schema to satisfy all the
> > > AP 210 requirements given the CD document facilities. I
> > don't have an
> > > opinion on how to achieve that result.) :-)
> > >
> > > As an evangelist for AP 210, that only gets my foot in the
> > door. There
> > is
> > > now another issue.
> > >
> > > The problem I see after actually sitting down for an hour
> > with someone
> > > with
> > > no knowledge of STEP who read the XML Schema into their development
> > > environment is that we also have to be careful not to
> > overload low end
> > s/w
> > > development environments graphical capabilities. there is
> > just so much
> > > space on a screen. And the XML Schema which swamped their
> > environment
> > was
> > > not AP 210. It was a special purpose schema with 4-6 entities, and
> > around
> > > 40 attributes, and a few unique rules. I would be
> > interested in hearing
> > > others experiences.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > Thomas R. "Tom" Thurman
> > > MS 106-183
> > > Rockwell Collins Inc.
> > > 400 Collins Road N.E.
> > > Cedar Rapids Ia, 52498, USA
> > > phone:(319)295-2280
> > > FAX:(319)295-0654
> > > This email and any attachments are confidential to the
> > intended recipient
> > > and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> > recipient please
> > > delete it from your system and notify the sender. You
> > should not copy it
> > > or
> > > use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its
> > contents to any
> > > other
> > > person.
> > >
> > >
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > > | | Martin Hardwick |
> > > | | <hardwick at steptoo|
> > > | | ls.com> |
> > > | | |
> > > | | 06/03/2004 10:24 |
> > > | | AM |
> > > | | |
> > > |---------+---------------------------->
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > > -------------------------------------------------------|
> > > |
> > > |
> > > | To: <trthurma at rockwellcollins.com>
> > > |
> > > | cc: david.price at eurostep.com,
> > expressIF at tc184-sc4.org,
> > > step-imp at steptools.com, step-manufacturing at steptools.com, |
> > > | wg12 at tc184-sc4.org, wg3 at tc184-sc4.org, xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> > > |
> > > | Subject: Re: Question to AP owners/implementors
> > on XML Schema
> > > use (Part 28 Edition 2) |
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > > -------------------------------------------------------|
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > If by late binding you mean a binding written like the Part 21
> > > binding but with XML tags defined for the entities, attributes
> > > and external mappings, then I agree.
> > >
> > > This will give us a file format that can be manipulated using
> > > XML tools, checked for structural syntax conformance using
> > XMLSchema,
> > > and understood/implemented by the average technical person.
> > >
> > > A simple language is attractive to us for the AP-238 project because
> > > we have found a way to support views of the data using modules based
> > > on the STEP-NC ARM. The methodology relies on extracting
> > information from
> > > the mapping tables and using it to encapsulate the AIM entities. The
> > > wrapping explains how the AIM entities represent an ARM
> > object so it is
> > > no longer necessary to manipulate the AIM entities into a logical
> > > representation using the configuration language.
> > >
> > > As I see it the following issues have led to undesirable
> > complexity in
> > P28
> > > e2.
> > >
> > > 1. Using EXPRESS to define XMLSchema that defines the data.
> > This is a
> > > meta-meta
> > > data approach, instead it would be better to follow the
> > P21 model.
> > >
> > > 2. Overly aggressive efforts to force the semantics of EXPRESS into
> > > XMLSchema,
> > > in particular the inheritance model, again it would be better to
> > follow
> > > the P21 model.
> > >
> > > 3. The need to support a legacy (another reason for the
> > configuration
> > > language).
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > At 11:01 AM 6/2/2004 -0500, trthurma at rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >All,
> > > >As a result of an evaluation of some experiments with Part 28 ed 2
> > > >compiler kindly executed by Electric Boat,
> > > >the AP 210 project has a concern with the lack of support in the
> > standard
> > > >for the so-called "late binding" approach.
> > > >
> > > >Best Regards,
> > > >Tom Thurman
> > > >
> > > >(My apologies to those who have already seen this message.)
> > > >
> > > >Thomas R. "Tom" Thurman
> > > >MS 106-183
> > > >Rockwell Collins Inc.
> > > >400 Collins Road N.E.
> > > >Cedar Rapids Ia, 52498, USA
> > > >phone:(319)295-2280
> > > >FAX:(319)295-0654
> > > >This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> > recipient
> > > >and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient
> > please
> > > >delete it from your system and notify the sender. You
> > should not copy it
> > > or
> > > >use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its
> > contents to any
> > > other
> > > >person.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Martin Hardwick
> > >
> > > > <hardwick at steptoo To:
> > "David Price"
> > > <david.price at eurostep.com>, <wg3 at tc184-sc4.org>,
> > > > ls.com>
> > <wg12 at tc184-sc4.org>
> > >
> > > > cc:
> > > <expressIF at tc184-sc4.org>, <step-imp at steptools.com>,
> > > > 12/02/2003 02:26
> > > step-manufacturing at steptools.com, xmlsc4 at nist.gov
> > >
> > > > PM Subject:
> > Re: Question to
> > > AP owners/implementors on XML Schema use (Part 28 Edition
> > > > 2)
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >All,
> > > >
> > > >In response to David's request below here is a STEP-Manufacturing
> > > >perspective:
> > > >
> > > >1. The STEP Manufacturing AP's (AP-219, AP-224, AP-238 and AP-240)
> > > > are already highly inter-operable using P21 technology. High
> > > > level API's have already been written for these AP's.
> > > >
> > > >2. The STEP Manufacturing data is intricate and highly complex. The
> > > > weakness of the existing P21 technology is that the data is hard
> > > > to read and copy so the form of the XML document is
> > MOST IMPORTANT.
> > > >
> > > >3. If a single configuration for all AP's can satisfy the whole
> > > > community then this is better than multiple
> > configurations. However
> > > > the experience of P28 Edition 1 suggests that readable data will
> > > > only be produced if each AP has its own configuration.
> > > >
> > > >4. Much information required to define a configuration is already
> > > > in the mapping tables. The manufacturing AP's are harmonized by
> > > > using the same mappings for the same concept.
> > Therefore, they will
> > > > continue to be inter-operable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Martin Hardwick
> > > >Team Leader Wg3/T24 STEP-Manufacturing
> > > >
> > > >At 04:39 PM 12/2/2003 +0000, David Price wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Hello WG3 and WG12,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>We ve been working with the AP233 and AP239 teams on Part
> > 28 Edition 2
> > > and
> > > >XML Schema. Part 28 E2 introduces a configuration language
> > allowing the
> > > >production of an XML schema to be tailored for an EXPRESS
> > schema. The
> > > >tailoring can happen at the global, entity and/or
> > attribute level. The
> > > >issue that has been raised during the discussions with
> > AP233 and AP239
> > is
> > > >if, or how, this capability should be used.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>I m trying to gather business requirements and technical
> > requirements
> > in
> > > >this area. If you have requirements or usage scenarios in
> > this area, I d
> > > >appreciate hearing about them.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>So far, what I ve heard from these two teams (and relayed
> > to the Part
> > 28
> > > >team today) is the following:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>1) A single configuration to produce a default data
> > exchange XML Schema
> > > >for both (or all?) APs is required. Some have said they
> > want WG3/SC4 to
> > > >agree and mandate a single configuration for AP implementation.
> > > >>
> > > >>2) Exactly what the XML document looks like is not that
> > important as a
> > > >high level, model based API will be used.
> > > >>
> > > >>3) The XML schema elements should be recognizable as
> > being derived from
> > > >the EXPRESS schema, but trying to reflect the EXPRESS
> > structure in XML
> > is
> > > >less important than simplicity and consistency.
> > > >>
> > > >>4) Interoperability, and therefore the same
> > configuration, is a high
> > > >priority for AP233, AP239 and PDM capabilities.
> > > >>
> > > >>5) The first AP233 and AP239 implementations will be
> > based on the ARM,
> > > not
> > > >the AIM. This may continue to be true for all
> > implementations as well.
> > > >>
> > > >>6) The PLCS consortium is planning on publishing the AP239 ARM XML
> > > Schema
> > > >through OASIS, so they don t expect implementations to be
> > EXPRESS-based.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Do other AP teams share these requirements? I agree they
> > are not all
> > > >completely consistent (ARM v. AIM), but requirements
> > seldom are. If your
> > > >requirements are different, in what way?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >>David
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Phone +44 20 7704 0499
> > > >>
> > > >>Mobile +44 7788 561308
> > > >>
> > > >>8 Highbury Place, Flat 5
> > > >>
> > > >>London N5 1QZ
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
More information about the wg11
mailing list