OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-poc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: Registry needs POC review


The query language syntax in the specs submitted for QR this week is a
constrained and proper subset of SQL-92 standard. The spec includes a BNF for
the subset SQL grammar. Note that there is no OQL in the grammar anymore.

The team had a choice of yanking the feature out all together or to place it in
with the "lack of concensus" disclaimer that Scott mentions. Given that the
Tokyo POC feedback had made a strong recommendation for the need for supporting
an ad hoc query syntax I am glsd the feature is in even if it has the

Since submitting the specs for QR I have been implementing the query processor.
I was able to implement the pasrer in about 4 hours which tested succesfully
for parsing and semantic analysis of all query styles listed in the spec as
well as many more complex queries. I am currently implementing the linkage of
the query to my backend implementation to get the feature fully functional. So
far it is proving to be  a relatively easy task.

I have offered to help any one (specially fellow POCers) who need
implementation help with the query processor. IMHO, the subset SQL query syntax
is the most familiar and easiest to use for people writing registry clients. An
ad hoc query capability (even when it is simplified by a fixed schema) is
non-trivial to implement in comparision to other features. However, I humbly
submit that it is a far far better thing for the haandful of ebXML Registry
implemntors to do the harder work once than for the thousands of registry
client to have less functionality or a harder, less obvious query interface.

If this issue merits a discussion of interested parties I will leave it up to
the team leadership to suggest a proper venue (team con call, sub-set team con
call of interested parties etc.). Of course you are always welcome to call me
directly if you have questions comments or suggestions.


Scott Hinkelman wrote:

> JP and POCers,
> The reg spec indicates that the query language syntax area does not have
> reg team concencous,
> which certainly is the case as indicated. There are those, like myself,
> that would like to see the registry
> not be bound to any one single syntax, even with the added interoperability
> ramifications of this that
> would include query languages discovery. My view would be not considering
> if a non-XML syntax
> is acceptable, but if to consider excepting if an XML syntax *could* be
> defined (or have normative
> reference to) and used as a query syntax.
> thanks,
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> JP Morgenthal <jp.morgenthal@xmls.com> on 01/19/2001 09:33:21 AM
> To:   ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Registry needs POC review
> POC'ers,
> As many of you may be aware there was a bit of a religious war about the
> query syntax for Reg/Rep.
> Since we are now in review mode, I'd like the implementation group to
> seriously think if they want to accept a non-XML syntax for reg/rep query
> as
> it will require the development of yet another parser within our products.
> Also, does anyone know when we're going to comment on the messaging spec?
> JP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:03 PM
> To: ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Registry needs POC review
> POCers,
> The registry team would like to get some feedback from the POC team on
> our latest specifications.
> Our latest specs may be found at the following URL:
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-regrep/200101/msg00182.html
> Please note that these versions have been submitted to QR for review. I
> apologize for not having sent earlier versions for your team's review.
> I look forward to working with you the following week. Please dont
> hesitate to ask for any clarifications in the interim.
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh

org:Sun Microsystems;Java Software
adr:;;1 Network Dr. MS BUR02-302;Burlington;MA;01803-0902;USA
fn:Farrukh Najmi

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC