RE: v0.8 Manifest proposal

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

Chris,

My impression is that the intent of the element was/is to convey metadata,
but that ebXML hasn't yet settled on how to represent metadata, so currenly
all the element is able to convey is schema.  That's a different view than
one that says all it will ever convey is schema.

Cheers,
         Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris - XTC Advanced Development
[mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 1:48 PM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
Cc: ebxml transport
Subject: Re: v0.8 Manifest proposal


Bob,

I didn't mean to imply that Schema is a language
for expressing metadata. Rather, that the only "metadata"
described in the proposed Metadata element was related
to the schema (or DTD) which defined the document
in the payload.

Cheers,

Chris

"Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
                               Christopher Ferris
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Sr Staff Engineer - XTC Advanced Development 
   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063      
  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903