Fw: Re: Schema & BP Spec: Items for today's BP/CC meeting

["Smith, Neal L. (NLSM)" <NLSM@chevron.com>]

Actually, the Requirements doc says "Design rules for developing ebXML
compliant XML documents that are based on approved W3C schema
specifications."

One might argue that DTD isn't really a schema specification and we ought to
wait until W3C Schema is approved before proceding. 

I merely propose a practical approach of targeting ebXML toward the most
current and comprehensive schema standard, while providing a DTD for
compatibility with existing tools. 

This is not merely an academic argument. In the BP Specification DTD,
"timeToPerform" is CDATA with a comment that "time periods are represented
using ISO8601 format". In W3C Schema, timeToPerform is type "duration",
which provides unambiguous documentation as well as the ability for tools to
do automatic validation. 

"Don't skate to the puck, skate to where it's going." - Gretzky

--------------------------
Neal Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>
To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Mon Apr 16 18:25:43 2001
Subject: Re: Schema & BP Spec: Items for today's BP/CC meeting

For what it's worth, the ebXML Requirements Spec limits ebXML to using
standards
that have an approved status.  That means that XML schemas, strictly
speaking,
are not compliant with the requirements.  However, the message handling and
CPA/CPP specs have already used XML schemas, so you all would be just one
more
not in compliance...

Betty Harvey wrote:

> The problem with delivering only a W3C schema is that it isn't
> approved yet.  Tools available for working with schemas
> are limited.  If ebXML is a standards body, it can't deliver
> only a schema when schema is standard.  Also, there are 2 other
> schema specifications being worked on by 2 other standards
> organizations, TREX by OASIS and RELAX through ISO.
>
> I think it would be wiser to deliver a DTD as the official
> deliverable and a schema as an 'added value'.
>
> Betty
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> Betty Harvey                         | Phone: 410-787-9200 FAX: 9830
> Electronic Commerce Connection, Inc. |
> harvey@eccnet.com                    | Washington,DC SGML/XML Users Grp
> URL:  http://www.eccnet.com          | http://www.eccnet.com/xmlug/
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Hayes, Brian wrote:
>
> > Karsten wrote:
> > > An issue just raised by Neal: Should we include a W3C schema
> > > version of the
> > > SpecSchema along with (or instead of) the DTD? What is the
> > > recommendation from
> > > BP/CC - DTD or Schema, or both?
> >
> > Time permiting, I strongly recommend we deliver a schema version.  DTDs
are
> > not precise enough for defining interfaces (structure and strings) and
the
> > BP Spec Schema is essentially and interface.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org