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

[Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net>]

This why I have recommend and still do, that we adopt or provide for a RDF
(Resource Definition Framework) as the notation for our business process and
document models.  RDF is an "approved" W3C standard. When I worked for Edifecs
which is the company that developed ALL of the RosettaNet PIPs, we would
translate a PIP UML model into RDF.(This not difficult) Then with the tools
available  on the RDF web, we could render the RDF into XML documents and their
associated DTD's. John Yunker of Edifecs has already contributed the RDF
specification to ebxml with full rights to use. All he waiting on is for us to
make the decision to use. I fully support this approach. I know how easy it is
to use and the precision has allowed me deal with not only RNet PIPS but EDI
imbedded or translated, binary documents (drawings) and flat files.

Jim Clark
Sr. Dir of Industry Solutions,
E2open
jclark@e2open.com

"Hayes, Brian" wrote:

> Betty,
>
> I'm confused.  Please explain where my statement states do not deliver DTDs?
>
> Also, are you advocating that we use an imprecise language (DTDs) for
> specifying an interface?  If so, how are we going to achieve
> interoperability?
>
> Cheers,
> Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Betty Harvey [mailto:ebxml@eccnet.eccnet.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 10:06 PM
> > To: Hayes, Brian
> > Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: Re: Schema & BP Spec: Items for today's BP/CC meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org

begin:vcard 
n:Clark;James
tel;cell:936.524.4424
tel;work:936.264.3366
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:I.C.O.T.
adr:;;10987 Quinlan N Lake;Conroe;TX;77303;
version:2.1
email;internet:jdc-icot@lcc.net
title:Principal Consultant
fn:James Clark
end:vcard