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

[Ed Barkmeyer]

David Price wrote:

> To clarify, STEPMod is the modules publication infrastructure. As such, the
> STEPMod DTD was based only on requirements for producing a documented schema
> using XSLT. Requirements for any other use of EXPRESS (e.g. validating data
> against EXPRESS rules or mapping to MathML) were not considered. I was
> unaware of the Japanese ballot comment on Part 28 E2 and so can't comment on
> their requirements. Adapting Part 28 E1 may be exactly what they want, or
> they may need something else entirely.
> 
> The STEPMod DTD was not put through the ISO process because of the overhead
> and delay involved ...
> 
> For the purpose of my particular open-source project, I've found the STEPMod
> DTD sufficient. I was asking if others have had a similar experience. My use
> of the term "de facto standard" seems to have raised concerns. ...

Let me make my position clear.  Per JP-5, Part 28 should provide a means 
of exchanging EXPRESS schemas in some XML "parsed" form.  I am hoping 
that Japan will clarify that request.  The question is whether what 
Japan wants is the Part 28v1 "fully parsed" form, or something more like 
the STEPmod form.  If the latter, then Part 28 should probably just use 
the STEPmod form.

Both David and Josh think the STEPmod form matches toolsmith needs 
better than the Part 28 v1 form, and I personally can conceive of no 
other needs for the exchange of EXPRESS schemas in parsed form.  But I 
have heard that there are implementations of the Part 28 v1 form, and 
those implementors might be in a position to answer David's original 
question differently.

Clearly there was no need to standardize the STEPmod form heretofore, 
but now there may well be value in doing so.  And since Josh volunteered 
to write it up, we could kill two birds with one stone.

My second email can be summarized as:  Josh's argument for 
'availability' is totally irrelevant.  We have a requirement to make an 
ISO standard form for the exchange of XML-parsed EXPRESS schemas.  The 
question is only whether the ISO standard form should be the STEPmod form.

I don't care what the answer to that question is, but if the answer is 
that there should be two 'standards', then there is NO consensus and 
there should be NO ISO Standard.

The larger question is whether on any aspect of XML representation all 
of you toolsmiths will ever compromise on a single standard, or 
consensus on XML will remain just as much a joke in SC4 as it is in the 
rest of the IT toolsmith community!  When we have no consensus, we 
should have the honesty to stop progressing a wastepaper 'standard'. 
And if that is what Josh really meant, then NIST does have a common 
position.

-Ed

"You have sat here too long for any good you may have been doing!"
   -- Oliver Cromwell, in dissolving the "Rump Parliament"

-- 
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."