RE: v0.8 Manifest proposal

["Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>]

Hi All,

Chris writes:
  I can see the merits of changing the subordinate element
  name of Metadata to Schema since that's currently all that
  is being cited w/r/t metadata.


XML Schema is a language for constraining the valid syntax of XML document
instances claiming conformance to the schema.  It is not a language for
expressing metadata.
  
The W3C Resource Description Framework (RDF) Rceommendation is an example of
a language for expressing metadata.  The W3C Resource Description Framework
Schema Candidate Recommendation provides assistance in the interpretation of
metadata by providing well known constructs for represnting relationships
(e.g., class/subclass)    

Please do not change the subordinate element name Metadata to Schema.

Cheers,
         Bob Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris - XTC Advanced Development
[mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:45 AM
To: ebxml transport
Subject: Re: v0.8 Manifest proposal


Matt,

Thanks for the comments. As to unnecessarily munging
the syntax, I'm not certain that I agree. It isn't
clear to me that we need to be concerned with "human"
readable syntax if that's what you are after. 

Again, my rationale for proposing xlink syntax
is that it is more closely aligned with the direction
expressed by the SOAP with Attachments specification
and thus offers us a better opportunity down the road for
convergence with the likes of XP.

I can see the merits of changing the subordinate element
name of Metadata to Schema since that's currently all that
is being cited w/r/t metadata.

e.g.

<Manifest xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<DocumentReference xlink:type="simple"
		xlink:role="http://www.ebxml.org/gci/purchaseOrder"
		xlink:href="cid:...">
		<Schema version="1.0"
 
href="http://www.ebxml.org/gci/OrderV0.1072400.dtd"/>
	</DocumentReference>
</Manifest>

As to my second use case using xpath (or xpointer) the
usefulness is that you can explicitly identify a node
in the CPA (Collaboration Protocol Agreement, which is
derivative of TPA from tpaML) which corresponds to the
"step/sequence" within a business process for which the 
message is intended.

Cheers,

Chris