[wg11] Re: [step-os] Using STEPMod XML Representation of EXPRESS

[Ed Barkmeyer]

Joshua Lubell wrote:

> But Ed, if the STEPmod spec were to be included in Part 28, then it 
> would become the property of ISO. People would have to buy Part 28 from 
> ISO in order to read the STEPmod spec. 

How many people in the world should ever have to read the STEPmod spec 
for XML rendition of an EXPRESS schema?  About 7, I would guess, all of 
whom are no doubt NB experts participating in SC4.  (And they can get 
SC4 documents free from ISO.)

> I would much rather see the 
> STEPmod spec published independent of ISO so that it can be freely 
> distrubuted. Otherwise, we're not likely to see much STEPmod-based 
> implementation outside of those already active in SC4.

I'm not sure what this means, but I would hope that exchanging ISO 
copyrighted EXPRESS schemas in any form is a rare occurrence in STEP 
implementation.

> I think the way to go is to first publish the spec as a freely available 
> technical report. It can then be adapted for Part 28 if SC4 so wishes. 
> But ISO should not be the first venue in which it is published.

By this logic, we should certainly stop making standards in WG11, 
because people would have to buy them from ISO, instead of inventing 
their own and publishing technical reports online.  That certainly 
applies to Part 14, 25, and 27, which didn't need to be ISO standards, 
and to Part 28, on which there has never been consensus.  And this logic 
should apply to Part 25v2 and binary exchange of STEP data.  Indeed, any 
future 20-series spec should be a technical report in the open software 
community and not an ISO standard, so as to maximize its accessibility. 
  Right?

That the ISO publication control process interferes with adoption of ISO 
standards has been an issue in several ISO communities in the recent 
past.  But we can't solve that problem -- it is out of our scope.  Our 
scope is to support the SC4 standards community as constituted, warts 
and all.

My concern is that Part 28, an ISO project SC4 intended to serve this 
same community, is required to specify a mechanism for representing 
EXPRESS schemas in XML.  If David and Josh think the most useful 
representation is the STEPmod representation and others agree, then 
surely that should be the proposed standard.  In any case, STEPmod 
should not refuse to allow its representation to be the Standard 
representation and simultaneously suggest that it be the "de facto 
standard" in the STEP community, IN LIEU OF the ISO standard 
representation.  What does Josh suggest Part 28 should standardize? 
(It's a little late to vote No on the NWI.)

-Ed

P.S.  The NIST goal in this whole effort was to get SC4 to agree to 
*common* XML representations.  Et tu, Brute?

-- 
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."