UBL LCSC MinutesUBL LCSC MinutesAttendees: Tim McGrath (chair), Lisa Seaburg (minutes), Eve Maler, Gunther Stuhec, Terry Schager, Joe Chiusano, Bill Meadows, Monica Martin, Mavis Cournane, Arofan Gregory, Bill Burcham.
1. Welcome from Joint Chairs Tim McGrath (LCSC) and Eve Maler (NDRSC).
2. NDR motion on containership, the following is the excerpt from the NDR Minutes of the statement:
The NDR SC advocates the use of containers for the following reasons:
The NDR SC wishes to put forth the following rule for containership for feedback from participants on the ubl-comment list. This proposal merely touches on part of the wider containership issue. Please note that this diverges from the modelling in the current distribution OP65.
A group of like elements constitutes a model element in its own right. The type of the containing element has a relationship to the type of the contained element. The name of the container Type uses the type name of the contained element and adds the word "List".
Here is an example of the proposed model:
The Order object class has a property called LineItemList. LineItemList is an instance of the object class called LineItemList. A LineItemList contains one or more instances of object class LineItem.
The dictionary entry name for this property LineItemList is Order.LineItemList.LineItemList.
When the existing naming rules are applied the resultant XML element name would be LineItemList.
Consequently, you have the freedom to choose a property term that differs from the representation term to accomodate elements that might be named as follows: Dictionary Entry Name = Order.Accepted.LineItemList with an XML element name of AcceptedLineItemList.
Here are the XML instances for these two examples
Example 1.
<LineItemList> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> </LineItemList>
Note that LineItemList is of type LineItemList.
Example 2.
<AcceptedLineItemList> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> <LineItem...> </LineItem...> </AcceptedLineItemList>
Note that here also the type of AcceptedLineItemList is LineItemList.
Arofan: We had put together a statement that was only focused on one part or piece of containership. Is this the best place to start with this issue? There are many issues within this one and we need to find a starting point.
Open the floor to questions about the scope of this position statement? No questions from the group.
Tim: (my personal statement) the UBL 0p65 does not follow any fixed rules about anything. It is not a meaningful argument to use this as saying it abided by any of these rules. Our consistency is not there yet.
Eve: Before we could actually put a resolution together we have to decide how this will be put forth to the comment list. Are we making a resolution and decision here? This forum is not the place to make a formal decision, but to discuss the options and come up with ideas and options. Also to sort out the issues.
The group agreed.
Eve: I would like to speak against the statement and why. I actually believe its the right thing to have a container for like elements. In specific, my problem is, it puts together two big issues and I think it should not. It is putting together the "Details" issue along with the "like items and containership" issue. I would very much like to see these issues separated.
Arofan: I wish Bill Burcham were here, he feels strongly that we are obsessing about the "Details" thing and we really shouldn't.
In terms of the UBL name, the RT doesn't have an impact. For the UBL name point of view, we needed a type.
The current statement as read is really two separate issues. The issue of naming an RT and type can be separated and in fact may not be an issue at all, from the containership issue.
The first part of this statement then which deals with repeated instances of the same structures, what these are and how to deal with them, this is the issue.
Arofan: In the NDR call last week, we put this together to give a why in the preamble. We didn't give an indepth, but gave a small introduction to the issue. Give just enough introduction to establish why this proposal was even being made.
Discussion of the Containership paper went on, and decided not add Arofan's paper link to this issue and statement, not yet. It brings in too many other issues, we need clear focus.
Tim: Use the part of his document about lists (section 1.1.1), but not the rest.
Discussion of Lists and container elements. How you would use the wrapper element around like items. For example a wrapper around a number of LineItems.
Tim: It appears we need to differenciation between the logical model and the schema. The container or object class may in theory only appears in the schema.
Arofan: It could be modeled or it could be arrived to by algorithim in building the schema. I am agnostic, I don't care about logical models, I only care about schema. I am happy with the results if I get my containers where I need them. It is in the UBL Charter to build the XML Schema, we need to keep our focus.
Arofan: We have agreed to take the definition of containership out of the Containership position paper, section 1.1.1, and take that wording and work it into the proposal. Second, to separate the issues around the use of Representation Terms/Types from the containership issue. And we need to record the proposal to reflect that.
Mavis: These action items will be assigned to tomorrows agenda.
6. Conclusion - in above discussion.
7. Other business -
Arofan: I would like to make a proposal, for a process to handle the bigger issues, I have read the papers and they seem to be coming from different view points. Lets sit down and agree on some of the requirements. What are the relevant requirements, take those and use those to help us get through the proposals and identify which meets which requirements.
Tim: Can I suggest we all come to tomorrow's meeting bringing with us our own list of what we think the requirements are, and spend some time collating them together and take a look at it as a whole together. This has never been done, and NDR does not have everything it needs as far as requirements go.
Mavis: We have our output from the two groups, but they seem disjointed because they cover the logical model, and we have output from the Library and the design issues, but there is missing bits in the middle.
Tim: We have discussed in the Chairs meeting, merging the NDR papers and the work LCSC is doing, so they are aligned. The next release will be from the November Plenary. This release needs to be one together.
Arofan: We can't get there without figuring out the relationship between the logical model and the schema.
Tim: We need clear rules about how we do our modeling and how to express that in XML schema. We are getting there, but we are still fragmented, but its closer. At our Face to Face in Boston we are planning to spend time on this issue.
Conclusion of Meeting: We will separate the issues between the RT/Type and the containership discussion.
8. Next Meeting - Next Tuesday 10 September 2002, same phone number and time.