Re: [obix] The Contract List is Dead, Long live the Contract Element! - for WD41

Craig--

    

    I've attached the WD40 diagram dated 20150422 and a work in progress
    on WD41.

    

    Should I touch up the document now that we've moved toward
    resolution? Do we need further discussion first?

    

      
      
      
      
      
      

    

    Does this all work for you? I'm not sure what the 1.0 behavior is;
    was the list-of-URIs and Nil a 1.1 innovation? Was it in 1.0 or 1.0
    extensions?

    

    Here's a partial update to the UML - from reverse-engineering the
    WD41 schema. Due to oddities in the Enterprise Architect UML tool I
    have to do some hand updates to the attributes - for example, in Op
    the attributes will be 

    

        in: contract

        out: contract 

    

    The initialization to Nil in the WD41 XSD is not yet reflected -
    again has to be manual.

    

    The terminology is

    

    Contract - The relevant agreement for a specific purpose, e.g., for
    Feed "in" and "of" are of type Contract. The XSD type is String. 
    The string contains one or more URIs separated by spaces. If the
    initial URI is the string "Nil" the Contract is treated as empty. 
    The initial URI element has special meaning - see section XYZ.

    

    Thanks!

    

    bill

    --

    
William Cox 

    
Email:  

    
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

    
+1 862 485 3696 mobile

    

    

    
On 4/26/15 6:56 PM, Toby Considine
      wrote:

    

    
      
      
      
      
      

        
Much of the conversation since February has
          been around the confusing and inconsistent use of Contract and
          ContractList. This is compounded by the “is” and the “of”
          which are “formatted as a contract list”

        
 

        
As I can best summarize the conclusions:

        
 

        
A ContractElement is an URI.

        
A contract is a string consisting of
          0-to-many space delimited ContractElements. 

        
If a Contract consists of 0 (zero)
          ContractElements, then by convention it is represented with
          the reserved string “nil”

        
 

        
There is some language that suggests that
          the first contract element in a contract has some sort of
          special or primary value, but it is not yet clear to me
          precisely what this means.

        
 

        
I believe that this language, and this
          description, if applied across all the areas of the
          specification document that use the term “Contract” will
          remove the last inconsistencies in the specification.

        
 

        
The Schema WD41, recently uploaded,
          reflects this change.

        
 

        
tc

        

            

        
“The

                single biggest problem in communication is the illusion
                that it has taken place.” 

        
–
              George Bernard Shaw.

        

            

        
          
            

              
                
Toby

                    Considine

                    TC9, Inc.

                


                    Phone: (919)619-2104

                
http://www.tc9.com
                    

              
              
                
  

              
              
                
Chair,

                    OASIS OBIX Technical Committee

                
Chair,

                    OASIS WS-Calendar Technical Committee

                
Editor,

                    OASIS Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX)
                    Editor, OASIS Energy Interoperation

                    blog: http://www.NewDaedalus.com 
                    

              
            

          
        
        
 

        
 

      

    
    

  

Attachment:
Obix-v1.1-wd41 draft pre-element cleanup.png

Description: PNG image

Attachment:
Obj and Subclasses20150422.png

Description: PNG image