[wg11] Re: Part 28 in Seattle?

[Martin Hardwick]

All,

We (STEP Tools) will not invest in P28 until we see
a way for it to be used for conformance tested data
exchange.

As soon as we believe the project is going to produce
something that can be used for conformance tested data
exchange then we will make every resource available 
because the user community really, really wants to use
XML to exchange STEP data.

In our opinion there are two obstacles that prevent the
current P28 being used for conformance tested data 
exchange:

1. P28 is used to generate an XML Schema that is then used
   to defined the exchange. 

This leads to a situation where the blind are leading the
blind. The STEP community does not fully understand XML Schema
and will never be sure what is allowed by a 1,000 plus lines
of XML Schema definition. The XML Schema community does not
understand the STEP models and has no need or motivation to
do so.

This needs to be fixed by using EXPRESS to define XML data.
Projects will then be able to define alternative schemas for 
that XML data using DTD's, XMLSchema, Relax or ancient Etruscan.


2. P28 has far too many configuration options.

The original intent of these options was to handle legacy data
without forcing the mainstream users to adopt the stupid choices
made for that legacy data.

However, the options have morph'd into a language to allow any 
XML Schema to be adopted as a STEP Schema because a configuration
exists to map the EXPRESS model into that XML Schema. Recently
this has become worse because it is no longer necessary to prove
the mapping using an execution engine.

The configurations need to be removed. If someone wants to morph
XML data defined by EXPRESS into another model they should use
XSLT like everyone else.

This project has been an example of everything that can go wrong
with the ISO standard process. It is too easy to be an XML expert,
too tempting to develop a business plan that requires capture of
the STEP market, and too difficult for the ISO process to stop these
hijackings.

Martin

At 01:12 PM 9/9/2004 -0400, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>Dave Loffredo wrote:
>
>>I have not yet heard from anyone regarding this ...
>>                                           - Dave
>>------------------------------
>> From loffredo Fri Sep 03 13:33:57 -0400 2004
>>From: Dave Loffredo <loffredo at steptools.com>
>>To: edbark at nist.gov
>>CC: hpreston at ebmail.gdeb.com, staub at pdtec.de,
>>        david.price at eurostep.com, Jochen.Haenisch at epmtech.jotne.com,
>>        Masaru.Suzuki at unisys.co.jp, abf at cme.nist.gov,
>>        hardwick at steptools.com, bgischne at ebmail.gdeb.com
>>...
>>Ed> I expect that Heidi et al. will have posted a "proposed DIS" of
>>Ed> Part 28 to the server by 15 September, after which Heidi will be
>>Ed> taking a rewarding leave of absence.  I would suggest we
>>Ed> (i.e. you) schedule some official "WG11 review" of that draft in
>>Ed> Seattle, prior to releasing that document, or its immediate
>>Ed> successor, to DIS-FDIS ballot.
>>Hi Ed, I am certainly happy to schedule any meeting or review session
>>that the Part 28 team would like to hold.  What day/time is best and
>>who will be leading the review?
>
>1) Because of funding limitations and other commitments, NIST can provide no further resources for the development of Part 28 after 15 October 2004.
>
>2) After discussion with Heidi, I now believe it is unlikely that a complete DIS draft, incorporating text for all agreed-on ballot comment resolutions, will be available before she goes on maternity leave.
>
>3) It is desirable that an interim editor be appointed.  If no interim editor is appointed, it is likely that Part 28 v2 will go into limbo, awaiting commitment of resources to complete the DIS.
>
>4) If a number of the NB representatives will be present in Seattle, it would be useful to schedule a session to ensure that the proposed resolutions are satisfactory, and possibly to develop/repair explicit text for them.  Heidi referred to this as a "continuation of the Groton Editing meeting".
>
>5) If a number of the NB representatives will be present in Seattle, and believe such a meeting worthwhile, I would be willing to chair that meeting.  If, however, an interim editor is appointed, s/he may better chair such a meeting.
>
>6) If, on the other hand, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (the NBs who commented on the CD) would not be represented at such a meeting, it would be reduced to a working session of such technical experts as may be present, and it is not clear that that has much value.
>
>4 hours on any of the days is acceptable to NIST.  (If there is need for additional technical discussion, we will find a time and place to continue.)  I prefer that the meeting not conflict with the Part 25 v2 session.
>
>Related topic, in expectaion of imminent change of the guard:
>
>For the plenary, I recommend that SC4 WG11 acknowledge Electric Boat's unflagging commitment of resources, both technical and editorial, to the development of an XML representation standard for the standard exchange schemas developed in SC4, and specifically acknowledge the personal contribution of Heidi Preston to this effort, as Editor of Part 28 v2, whose only reason for abandoning us now is that she has truly more important commitments!
>
>If I am in Seattle at the appropriate time, I would be happy to make this motion in person.  But if not, I would be grateful to the Convenor if he could find a willing participant to do so in my stead.
>
>-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
>_______________________________________________
>wg11 mailing list
>wg11 at steptools.com
>http://lists.steptools.com/mailman/listinfo/wg11
>
>
>!DSPAM:41408f17176411409110076!