[wg11] Part 28 teleconferences

[Ed Barkmeyer]

Guenter Staub wrote:

> It was never my/our understanding, that a conforming post-processor is
> required to accept *any* of those conforming data sets (at least not from a
> STEP perspective).
>>From our point of view, an AP should contain (in an appropriate annex) a
> specific P28Ed2 configuration (or even only the default binding) for its
> EXPRESS data model. A conforming post-processor is required to accept only
> those XML data sets, that are organized according to that XML schema that is
> generated using the EXPRESS data model and the P28 configuration defined in
> that annex as an input an applies the rules that are defined in P28Ed.

Yes.  I agree with this, and I think the U.S. delegation does.  But I 
think the "long-form" idea will again be used in SC4, and in addition to 
the standardized configuration file, the AP will contain a *normative* 
Annex giving the resulting XML schema.  If that happens, Part 28 is only 
documentary -- the XML conformance is defined entirely by that normative 
XML schema in the AP, and the related W3C standards.  But perhaps I will 
be wrong about that.

The idea of a conforming post-processor that can accept *any* XML 
configuration of any EXPRESS schema is in the N229 CD, and it is the 
only notion of general post-processor conformance in the CD.  I 
understand you to say that Germany does not see a need for this.  I 
don't know whether the U.S. agrees with that position.  I personally 
think that having tools that can process arbitrary configuration files 
for arbitrary EXPRESS schemas is desirable, but not a requirement.  The 
U.S. does agree (I think) that we need all three of the other 
conformance ideas, including the one you state.

-Ed

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."