Re: Oooh - Ouch! Is it necessarily the Truth if it Hurts?

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Martin Bryan
>
I stated, quite clearly:
...our datatyping CWA has not had any influence on the development
   of ebXML, which insists on using a limited set of "representation
   types" based on existing EDI practices which are not formally
   defined, rather than adopting formal definitions of the type
   supplied in XML Schemas as recommended by the CWA...

Note the words "of the type" - the paper did not say that "you must use XML
Schemas". It stated quite clearly that a) you need formal definitions that
are computer interpretable b) the set of formally defined datatypes that
best fits business needs is a subset of the W3C Schema Part 2 proposals.
That is why my complaint in the above sentence is that representatiosn
types
"are not formally defined". If someone comes up with a way that a computer
can identify when a representation type has or has not been used then I can
withdraw my objections.

Martin Bryan
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Martin,

Apologies - I completely forgot your excellent paper on datatyping off
your web site.  Yes - it was a pity noone in ebXML took time to formally
consider all this - and instead punted.   This bear is very much alive
and roaming the woods to maul the unsuspecting!!!

Too much "XML implementation details" for those who want just a
top-down functional modelling approach.

Ho hum.

I still like the approach RELAX NG is taking on this!

Thanks, DW.