ISSUE-72:: Do we need appendix A (pseudo-schema)?

Raised in JIRA as ISSUE -72:

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-72

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

Anish Karmarkar <>

04/07/2008 00:25

To

OASIS Assembly <>

cc

Subject

[sca-assembly] NEW ISSUE: Do we need
appendix A (pseudo-schema)?

Title: Do we need appendix A (pseudo-schema)?

Description:

In the assembly spec, statements related to the structure of the 

scdl/componentType/constrainingType occur in:

1) Spec text (such as, 'this optional element of type xs:anyURI washes

dishes'),

2) XML Schema in appendix B

3) XML Schema as a separate doc pointed at by the RDDL

4) pseudo-schema that is strewn throughout the spec

5) pseudo-schema in appendix A

Any change to the syntax requires changes in 5 different places. Yes, 

pseudo-schemas are non-normative, so an error in pseudo-schema poses a

lesser problem than an error in normative text. Nevertheless, we should

aim for no errors. Pseudo-schema is meant mostly for readability (as in

most cases XML Schema isn't) and therefore meant for consumption by 

human readers. We already have partial pseudo-schemas throughout the 

doc. Is it still necessary to have a consolidated pseudo-schema in 

appendix A? If not, we should get rid of it and eliminate a potential 

source of inconsistency/error.

Proposal: none

-Anish

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS

at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU