[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [cam] Revision 0.12 draft ZIP
Team, Attached is the ZIP file of the latest edits. I've received comments from Jim Wessely, Martin Bryan, Bruce Peat and Duane Nickull. I also received lots of FAQ type questions from Ed Buchinski - those details are at our SWIKI. So the attached reflects the technical edits (note - track changes is "On" and that lets' you see all the changes directly). Martin Bryans comments were the most technical in nature, and so I've included them here below, with my actions. Duane made suggestions for improving the context passing mechanism in the addendum, that I have adopted and adapted. Please review all this for our Thursday conference call. We will have more time for follow-on items and issues regardless after Thursday. I may also add that generally reviewers so far have been very positive about the draft as it stands. Thanks, DW. p.s. We now have 20 participants in the TC, I'll look to get a full roster out shortly - Karl has still to add another two people. Our family is growing! ========================================================== Martins comments: I don't seem to be able to control the minimum number of an element, e.g. if member type is new or renew then number of items must be 4 or more. >>> OK - added a new function - setRequired() to handle this. I also don't seem to be able to do ranges, e.g. from 13 to 16 characters, or 4-8 elements or 2-5 tokens in an attribute. >>> OK - changed functions so you can overload them with range parameters. The difference between useElement() and useChoice() is not clear. >>> OK - basically useElement() does not require setChoice() first - so its more easy to use. Updated the documentation to stress this. <<< Does the treepath associated with useTree() identify the point the tree is to be attached to or the tree to be attached to some point? In either case something is missing as you need to specificy a) where the tree is to start and b) which tree to use. >>> Is relative node driven - changed documentation to clarify behaviour. The list of types shown for StructuredType() in the table conflicts with the values assigned to this attribute in the DTD. >>> Ooopps! fixed the table entry. The use of greater() as the opposite to lessthan() is confusing. Stick to greaterthan() >>> Changed to greatthan() throughout document I would have expected a contains() extension for XPath to allow you to look for strings within contents or attribute values. Starts and ends are easy, its the centres that are runny. >>> Ooops! contains added (was supposed to be in there!). In figure 4.5.1 what does expression="'//RefCode + //UnitPrice'" actually mean? It says to me that if any RefCode or any UnitPrice fails the test report, but take no further action. What I think you are trying to say is //RefCode(sibling::(UnitPrice)), i.e if the UnitPrice for the sibling of any RefCode meets the condition. The plus sign is ambiguous here and does not imply that there is a relationship between individual members of each set. >>> Its a string concatenation. Added documentation and function. The XPath predicates given for the EDI example in figure 4.6.2.2 are invalid and should not be referred to in terms of XPath. You could easily change them into string searches that XPath would honour. >>> This is a tougher one - not resolved this yet - needs more research. For things like @multiply(p1,p2) you need to restrict the predicates to being numeric, and state what the conversion rules are if they are of different types. Simarly for @upper(p1) and @lower(p1) the predicate must be a string of Latin, Cyrillic or Greek characters: for most other languages case is irrelevant. Incidentally you need generally to state the role of ISO 10646 in all this. >>> OK done. Documentation enhanced. Is there an on-line source of the spec I can point people to? >>> I've put the ZIP for the 0.12 revision at our SWIKI - http://cam.swiki.net Incidentally, if you want CAM to be used generally, as an extension to RNG along the lines of Schematron, you need to sanitize the preamble to stress this is an open approach. If you do this I can submit CAM as a possible part for the DSDL spec. >>> Done. Hopefully we now pass muster on this aspect! Also longer term - I want to make the Addendum where we cover off non-normative bindings and implementation examples to the various sectors out there, just as RosettaNet, EDI, CEFACT, UBL, and so on.
Attachment:
CAM-v1-draft-022503.ZIP
Description: Binary data
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC