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

[David Price]

All,

I checked the Part 28 E1 express DTD annex and there's no text at all. The
reader must look at Part 11 to figure out what each element means. Could
Part 28 E2 continue with that approach? If not, why not?

Also, I have to disagree with Ed about the free availability of
specifications being "totally irrelevant". I expect that means we are
talking about different things. I agree Josh's point is irrelevant with
respect to Part 28 Edition 2 and JP-5.

I think Josh's point is very important with respect to the open-source
projects and making EXPRESS/STEP more widely known. This discussion started
on the open-source exploder, not the WG11 exploder, and in that community
what Josh offered to do is very valuable.

I do not believe the text for the Part 28 E2 standard, if it is needed, is a
suitable replacement for the DTD user guide Josh proposed. I expect the user
guide would more closely resemble the text in Part 11 than anything Part 28
needs.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: step-os-bounces at ned.gsfc.nasa.gov [mailto:step-os-
> bounces at ned.gsfc.nasa.gov] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: 08 September 2004 16:00
> To: STEP Open-Source
> Cc: 'SC4 WG11'
> Subject: Re: [wg11] Re: [step-os] Using STEPMod XML Representation of
> EXPRESS
> 
> 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."
> _______________________________________________
> step-os mailing list
> step-os at step.nasa.gov
> http://step.nasa.gov/mailman/listinfo/step-os