RE: Review of thoughts on Ad Hoc Queries

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>]

Farrukh, this follow well with the analysis we did in Burlington last week
and the recent postings to the listserv.

I am concerned that some of the recent comments seemed to be moving towards
a custom query syntax.  I don't know what this is about, as one of the ebXML
requirements is to ensure that we reuse existing standards before we
(re)invent them.  

I don't see any significant technical difference in a custom query syntax
vs. constrained OQL or XPATH --- each string needs to be parsed and mapped
to the underlying query syntax used by a given implementation.  It does not
prescribe the implementation.  In essence, using OQL is no different than
using UML to model.  I don't execute the UML model, I map it to a
programming language (at least in the current version of UML -- 2.0 may be
executable).

I voted last week for the xpath of least resistance, particularily since I
thought that ebXML members would applaud.  But NO!  Now I am starting to
move back towards OQL since it allows a tighter synergy with the RIM
document and allows us to make only minor editorial changes to the RS ad hoc
section.

(I can only imagine what kind of flame I would get if I recommended Object
Constraint Language -- part of the UML standard itself --- a query is a
constraint).

I move we edit the RS document and get it to a listserv vote on the ad hoc
query section.  Times running out...

Regards,

Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi
To: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Sent: 1/8/01 5:50 PM
Subject: Review of thoughts on Ad Hoc Queries


Please find attached a review of the thought process that has gone into
the ad hoc query proposal as it has evolved since Tokyo. As always
please share your thoughts and comments on the list.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

 <<AdHocQuerySupport.pdf>>  <<Card for Farrukh Najmi>>