[wg11] Part 28: Incompatible revision of the MAP directive

[David Price]

Hi Dave,

It seems to me that Part 28 would still be a standard that is implemented,
but it would be as an EXPRESS-to-XML schema generator, not something used
during data exchange. There are some for whom that's all Part 28 ever was -
I'm one such customer.

I expect that means a common basis for AP-interoperability would continue to
exist but it would have to be based on the default binding.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wg11-bounces at steptools.com [mailto:wg11-bounces at steptools.com] On
> Behalf Of Dave Loffredo
> Sent: 11 August 2004 23:33
> To: xmlsc4 at nist.gov; wg11 at steptools.com
> Cc: radack at ctcgsc.org; isowg12 at imc7.ems.lmco.com
> Subject: Re: [wg11] Part 28: Incompatible revision of the MAP directive
> 
> 
> 
> Heidi,
> 
> If I understand these plans correctly, I am concerned from a WG11
> perspective.  In particular, the line below:
> 
> HP> This change in effect makes it IMPOSSIBLE to build a post
> HP> processor that can accept an arbitrary configuration file, and
> HP> process XML data according to the resulting XML schema.  In
> HP> general, the post processor would need specific knowledge of how
> HP> to perform any/all such MAPped transforms.
> 
> If this is true, than P28 will not be a standard that is implemented,
> but rather just a paper mechanism for "blessing" random XML schemas as
> STEP by means of an unimplementable config language transformation.
> 
> We will no longer have common basis for exchange among our suite of
> STEP APs as with P21, only custom point-to-point translators for XML
> schemas that cannot be simply transformed into each other.
> 
> 						- Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Original message below ------------------------------
> 
> >>>>> "HP" == Heidi L Preston <hpreston at ebmail.gdeb.com> writes:
> 
> HP> In response to several ballot comments, the Part 28 editing meeting
> has
> HP> decided that no post processor will be required to accept an arbitrary
> HP> configuration file, and process XML data according to the resulting
> XML
> HP> schema.  Rather, the configuration language will be used to formally
> define
> HP> the derivation of particular (perhaps normative) XML schemas from the
> HP> corresponding EXPRESS schemas.  Germany has requested a more powerful
> MAP
> HP> configuration directive to specify the mapping of an arbitrary EXPRESS
> HP> defined data type to an arbitrary XML schema data type, e.g.,
> "julian_date"
> HP> to "xsd:dateTime" or "address" to CEFACT "Address".  The editing
> meeting
> HP> proposes to accept this comment, and to change the current MAP
> directive to
> HP> support it.
> 
> HP> This change in effect makes it IMPOSSIBLE to build a post processor
> that
> HP> can accept an arbitrary configuration file, and process XML data
> according
> HP> to the resulting XML schema.  In general, the post processor would
> need
> HP> specific knowledge of how to perform any/all such MAPped transforms.
> 
> HP> This is not a problem for post processors for specific derived XML
> schemas,
> HP> e.g., the proposed AP214 XML schemas, or the probably AP238 and AP239
> XML
> HP> schemas.  Those post processors will understand the interpretation of
> the
> HP> (perhaps normative) XML schema.
> 
> HP> It is also not a problem for schema generator tools, in that
> generating the
> HP> MAPped XML schema only does not require knowledge of how to perform
> the
> HP> data transforms.
> 
> HP> We recognize that this situation will be incompatible with the
> previous
> HP> requirements of the draft.  Does anyone have a problem with this
> HP> generalization of the MAP directive?
> 
> HP>
> **************************************************************************
> *
> HP> Heidi Preston
> HP> Electric Boat Corporation
> HP> 75 Eastern Point Road
> HP> Groton, CT 06340
> HP> (860) 433-8649
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wg11 mailing list
> wg11 at steptools.com
> http://lists.steptools.com/mailman/listinfo/wg11