RE: Representation Types Alternatives

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Title: RE: Representation Types Alternatives

Mike,

        I believe the Representation Types should be consistent with the data types of BP.  Conversely, BP data types should support those that are available in all existing syntax specific instances of an ebXML document.  For example, if there are data types available in the W3C schema specification that are missing from those of BP, then BP should be adjusted accordingly.

Mark Crawford

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:34 PM
> To: ebXML-core
> Subject: Re: Representation Types Alternatives
>
>
> In the week since I posted this only Bob Miller (for #1), and
> Martin Bryan
> (who agrees with me on #2) expressed any opinion (unless I'm missing
> someone).   Shall the editors be directed to make this change
> or does anyone
> else have anything to say about it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Mike Rawlins wrote:
>
> > In my comments during the first review cycle I noted
> several problems
> > with representation types as they are currently defined.  I
> see these
> > problems as show stoppers that must be fixed before final
> approval.  The
> > 1.02 documents seem to have few changes in this area.   I
> suggest that
> > the two most promising ways to handle my concerns are:
> >
> > 1)  Formally define representation types, refining the current
> > definitions
> >
> > 2)  Adopt an existing set of data types.  Several
> candidates exist:  The
> > most likely is the set identified in the BP Specification Schema,
> > section 9.1 - Data Typing.  Other choices are the datatypes
> defined in
> > XML schema or UML.
> >
> > Before one or the other is adopted, a pertinent question to
> ask first is
> > what is the purpose of representation types?  If the purpose is to:
> >
> > a)  merely constrain the value space ("set of values" is how it is
> > stated in the CC spec), then I suggest we take alternative 2 as the
> > simplest approach.  We may then define a set of primitive properties
> > such as quantity, amount, etc., that are reusable and may
> take the place
> > of some of the current representation types that would be
> dropped with
> > such an approach.
> >
> > b)  If the purpose is to constrain the value space *and* provide the
> > analyst/modeler with a level of abstraction and higher level of
> > reusability than the types offered by the Specification
> Schema, XML, or
> > UML, then we should define a set of types rather than adopt
> one.  When
> > defining the set, we should fully specify all of the
> relevant fields for
> > each type (for example - measure has both value and units).
> >
> > I tend to favor a) since it is simpler, can probably be
> done with less
> > effort, and more aligned with the BP and other work.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > 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-core-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-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>