[dsdl-discuss] Agenda for September

Because of holiday constraints I will need to circulate the agenda for the
September meeting next week. I propose the following order of business:

1. Reveiw of comments on Part 3: IS-Schematron
2. Review of comments on Part 4: NVDL
3. Review of comments from Peter Sharpe on need for Part 6 (see below)
4. Review of progress on parts 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10

Any suggestions for improvements to this agenda would be gratefully
received. Note that any papers for discussion at the meeting should be
circulated to the list by Friday 20th August.

One of our XML UK members has suggested there may be no justification for
Part 6. His reasoning is given below. Item 3 of the agenda is designed to
discuss these issues.

"I have had a good look at DSDL and have the following comments on Part 6:

A. I do not believe that there is any advantage in ISO producing a
standard for the W3 XML Path Language as:
· Logically this leads to the requirement to produce an ISO standard
for every W3 recommendation used in DSDL as a "Normative Reference".
· It probably does not help relationships between W3 and ISO.
· If as stated somewhere within DSDL - if software is produced to
the W3 recommendation or ISO standard the results should be the same - it is
a pointless waste of time as developers will use the W3 recommendation not
the ISO standard.
· If the W3 recommendation is ambiguous on any point, ISO should not
define the point without getting W3 to first tighten up their wording.
Otherwise W3 could at a later date decide on a different interpretation.
· When W3 produces a new version, ISO will have to do the same.

B. dsdl-1.pdf - section 8.6 Part 6: Path-based Integrity Constraints
states:
"It allows:
- the identification of paths that must exist in the document if a
particular element, attribute or subtree exists within the document
- the expression of identity and integrity constraints on components of
document instances identified through the use of path expressions."

       Surely these are rule based constraints and, therefore, belong in
Part 3.

C. dsdl-1.pdf - section 8.6 Part 6: Path-based Integrity Constraints
states:
"Path-based constraints will also permit the specification of inter-document
relationships, allowing the validity of one document to depend on the
presence of specific information in another document."

Surely these are rule based constraints and, therefore, belong in Part 3.

D. dsdl-1.pdf - section 8.6 Part 6: Path-based Integrity Constraints
states:
"Path-based constraints can be used to identify a section of a document
against which a specific schema may be applied. For example, if a document
has adopted the CALS table model without assigning a specific namespace to
CALS-conformant elements, this Part can be used to select a table and parse
it according the a schema fragment that defines the structure of CALS
tables."

I believe that logically this belongs to Part 10. "

Peter has also raised the following point that I feel needs discussion:
"DSDL does not include a rational for using RELAX NG rather than W3 XML
Schema. What is the reason and why is it not stated in DSDL?" I believe we
should cover that point in Part 1, but am unsure how best to cover it.

Can you please let both myself and Alex Brown (alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk)
know if you are intending to join us in Cambridge. Thanks

Martin Bryan

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)