RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

David says ...
>>>I'm very happy with 4 to 6 months [for W3C schema], seeing this meshes
well with the ebXML timetable<<<

I think that we can completely separate any dependency between the schema
recommendation and our work if:
1. We specify the data requirements and structure of any message headers,
envelopes etc, in a way that is "syntax neutral", ie. we define a
hierachical structure of field names and descriptions where all the field
names are expressed in natural english or short phrases.
2. We map the hierachical structure to relevent XML definition languages
specifically a DTD and a W3C Schema if it's available and judged
sufficiently stable.

Thoughts?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 6:05 PM
To: Dave Hollander
Cc: [unknown]; [unknown]
Subject: Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE


Dave,

Thanks very much for your insights and understanding.  I feel
generally that your comments show we are all generally following
the same direction, and not any major disagreement on the
needs.   And we are all still learning.  Noone has all the answers.

I still have some specific questions, and
I've replied with some further notes.  Highest is the concern as
to what the agenda is here?  I've heard 4 to 6 months before a
Schema recommendation, then the next week I hear "within one month"?!

I know the W3C does not like to be committed on these ticklish issues -
but this is a pretty large spread!  I'm very happy with 4 to 6 months, 
seeing this meshes well with the ebXML timetable, and allows a 
considerable amount of further interaction to take place.   As you noted,
this is nothing like the way the original XML V1.0 was put in place - the
world is now very different.  Also - this is a VERY key piece and like good
wine or cheese, deserves to be conditioned and tended to ensure a
world class end product.

See my further notes below - and looking forward to other peoples
thoughts and ideas here.

Appreciatively, DW.

Message text written by Dave Hollander
>
As commercial implementations emerge we will see about the other 
claims of expense and specialized knowledge. IBM, Microsoft, 
CommerceOne and Extensibility have implemented major portions of
the spec and do not express undue concerns about supporting it.

>>>>>>>>> Hmmmm, big difference between vendors building tools
                      as compared to people actually using them to solve
                      real business problems.  Every airplane always looks
                      and sounds fantastic sat in the hanger!   BizTalk is
a 
                      large point in case here!!   Noone is out there with
1,000
                      trading partners and 50 systems integrated using
Schemas
                      and suddenly finding a "re-call" is needed on the
versioning,
                      model and typing systems.....or their programmers are
papering
                      over the cracks - just writing code - and spending
money covering
                      what the vendors are not doing...

I know at least three DTD authors whose DTD skills I respect very
much that have begun porting to XML Schemas. They are excited and
pleased with the results. As the industry starts creating tools
and books, the skills issue should recede.

>>>>>>>>> I know three others how are massively disenchanted!  At 
                      some point we take a straw poll - I'd like to get a
sense from other
                      people on these listservers particularly.    I gave a
URL challenge
                      of a Schema that was public - with the question - can
you tell me what 
                      this Schema does, and what the data model is - merely
from looking
                      at the XML syntax?   Also, as Martin Bryan has shown,
there are yet
                      other approaches which positively ooze readability
and 
                      commonsense that we should be reviewing.

                      Also - my acid test again is not people with PhD's
doing this - but 
                      ordinary folks who attend my XML classes - right now
I see panic,
                      glazed eyes and fear when viewing Schemas - unlike
DTD's which
                      people are able to grasp.   (so OK I do teach DTD's
well, and right
                      now teaching schemas is still an emerging art
form...).

>Hopefully a healthy sanity check now ensues where business focused details
>that the eDTD work sets out are placed square and center. 
>
>( http://www.bizcodes.org/eDTD/xml-eDTDWP.htm )

I am looking forward to a heads-up comparison and understanding.
There are several alternatives to XML Schemas emerging and as
co-chair of the schema WG want us to learn what the differences
and similarities are.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, your openness here is refreshing and greatly appreciated.  There is
a tremendous amount of detail to review - that is tough to get into simple
email or
white paper.  Time permitting I need to do a followup audio / PPT to help
the discussion
of all the issues and ideas.   What also helps is people on listservers
like this
asking really insightful and penetrating questions (never a shortage of
that!).

Thanks, DW.