Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

David/All,

I think that we can skip the "syntax neutral" aspect and use DTD for now.
There
exist tools to assist in the mapping of DTD's to Schema (albeit other schema
proposals
such as SOX and XDR) and I'm confident that there will be tools to do the same
with
the formal W3C Schema recommendation once it is approved.

I think that it is key that we go with what we've got and not be dependent
upon
that which isn't ready for prime time.

One of the key drivers for ebXML is lowering the barriers to entry for the
"little guy"
which means that (IMHO) we need to provide standards which can be successfully

implemented using readily (and inexpensively!) available tools and
technologies.

Everyone has access to validating XML parsers (SAX and/or DOM) today. Many are

free. One cannot say the same for W3C Schema processors.

Any cycles spent on selecting (or worse yet, inventing) some "syntax neutral"
specification
language will be lost towards the actual work required of this group, the
actual definition of (at least)
the 3 key deliverables you yourself suggested in a previous email.

Cheers,

Chris
David Burdett wrote:

> 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