Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

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

David,

I think we're on the very same page here;-)

Chris

David Burdett wrote:

> Christopher
>
> I think we completely agree. We definitely don't want a "specification
> language" the good old printed word (plus a few diagrams) is fine for what
> we need to do right now.
>
> I also agree that we specify it as a DTD first, but we should do it in
> anticipation of the existence of a schema language.
>
> What this means is that when we specify (in words) the structure of our
> message headers, we should include Schema concepts such as datatypes and
> inheritance (i.e. this element is like some other one, but with extra bits)
> as this will make the transition to schemas much easier.
>
> Right now in Commerce One, we have tools that allow you to translate from
> SOX (our own XML Schema language) to a DTD, Microsoft's XDR or the current
> draft of the W3C schema so going from one definition language to another one
> is largely a mechanical exercise.
>
> Remember though, that in the XML **instance** they should (or is it must)
> all be the same.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 8:24 AM
> To: David Burdett
> Cc: David RR Webber; Dave Hollander; [unknown]; [unknown]
> Subject: Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
>
> David,
>
> Possibly I misunderstood your original point. I agree that there's a benefit
> in keeping specific syntax out of the picture while we do our analysis and
> design
> as we are currently proceeding.
>
> I was referring to whatever it is we choose to use for the formal
> specification
>
> as opposed to wasting our efforts on defining or selecting some syntax
> neutral
> specification language.
>
> The idea of a style-guide is a good one, assuming we can find one. I don't
> think
> we should invest any effort on development of one. Possibly the Requirements
> WG
>
> or one of the other groups might consider spending cycles on this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> David Burdett wrote:
>
> > >>>I think that we can skip the "syntax neutral" <<<
> >
> > Not so fast.
> >
> > There are another two reasons to go the syntax neutral appraoach first and
> > leave the development of the DTD until a little bit later:
> > 1. We will postpone (we can't avoid) the religous wars over where we use
> > elements and where we use attributes, and how we name things, for example
> do
> > we have "<MessageHeader>, <MsgHdr>, <message.header>, <messageHeader> or
> > some other permutation you can think of
> > 2. It will force us to focus on analysis and design before we get to
> coding
> > ... how often do you see a DTD that has no documentation and you are left
> to
> > **infer** the meaning of an element or attribute from its name only.
> >
> > I think actually that the first point on use of names in an XML style
> thing
> > and wouldn't it be nice if there was an ebXML "style guide" for writing
> XML,
> > or does someone know a good one we could consider adopting
> >
> > David
> > PS perhaps I'm starting the "religous war" by raising this issue now ...
> ;-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 6:34 AM
> > To: David Burdett
> > Cc: David RR Webber; Dave Hollander; [unknown]; [unknown]
> > Subject: Re: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
> >
> > 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