> I'm not sure what you are really asking for. In the proposal
> that I made
> for toppish assertions, I provided complete schemas and
> examples.
Then I completely missed something. All I saw were the pictures in the
latest postings. I dug back through things and found the original proposal
which, when coupled with the diagrams, provides all I am looking for.
Sorry for the confusion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orchard, David [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: Simon Y. Blackwell;
> Subject: RE: 3 different assertions diagrams
>
>
> Simon,
>
> I'm not sure what you are really asking for. In the proposal
> that I made
> for toppish assertions, I provided complete schemas and
> examples. This
> covers 95% of the 2 diagrams I showed. The top bits (how to
> structure any
> recursion) is the only thing without a sample. Phil has
> produced a number
> of examples in his examples doc, and I even went as far as to create a
> diagram for his proposal. Eve even created another diagram showing a
> different representation.
>
> I really think that at this point submitters have done a good job of
> providing material to illustrate their submissions, and even
> tried to help
> clarify other people's submissions.
>
> If you want more work to be done by submitters, please
> describe exactly and
> explicitly what pieces you would like. I'm personally not in
> favour of
> doing much more editorial work until some decisions are made.
>
> Dave
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Y. Blackwell [mailto:]
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:16 AM
> > To: 'Eve L. Maler';
> > Subject: RE: 3 different assertions diagrams
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:20 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: RE: 3 different assertions diagrams
> > >
> > ... major section deleted ...
> > >
> > > >2) It is not clear from the diagram (which is one reason I
> > don't find
> > > >diagrams useful) how the syntax is implemented.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I find diagrams immensely useful for ensuring that
> > > we all are
> > > talking in the same language, and they're particularly useful
> > > in a group
> > > where most of the expertise is on the security side, not the
> > > XML side. The
> > > notation I've used isn't complete for implementing a schema,
> > > but given our
> > > discovery of mismatched concepts in last Tuesday's meeting, I
> > > don't think
> > > we're ready for a real schema yet. We have to ensure that
> > > our rough design
> > > incorporates all the "things" it needs and that we have
> > > agreed on common
> > > names for the different "things." Then we can agree on a
> > > configuration for
> > > them, and only then can we start writing a schema that won't
> > > have to be
> > > rewritten a bunch of times... I anticipate that we might be
> > > able to get to
> > > the "configuration" point by the end of the F2F, which would
> > > be a huge
> > > accomplishment.
> >
> > I agree with both points. As such, I would find it VERY
> > useful to have at
> > least some snippets of syntax associated with diagrams. In
> > general, the
> > diagram creator is probably the person with the best mental
> > model to create
> > these snippets. Maybe I'm a cripple, but I find it a real
> > mental exercise to
> > grasp the model and then create for myself what I think the
> > syntax would
> > look like, which then allows be to re-confirm the model, i.e.
> > if I come up
> > with a really strange syntax, I assume I have failed to
> understand the
> > model. I also find snippets of syntax useful for determining
> > if everything
> > needed is captured. The same goes for DTDs BTW, they are much more
> > approachable if provided with an example of actual use.
> >
>
