<none>

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

<none>

David Orchard

I enclose an updated terminology section and diagram for the TAG finding on ext/versioning.  Your review is appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave

1.1 Terminology

The terminology for describing languages, namespaces, constraints, evolvability etc. follows. Let us consider an example. Two systems need to exchange name information. Names may not be the perfect choice of example because of internationalization reasons, but it resonates strongly with a very large audience. The Name language exists to be exchanged. [Definition: A producer is an agent that creates an instance. ][Definition: A Production is the creation of an instance.]. A producer produces an instance for the intent of conveying information. [Definition: A consumer is an agent that consumes an instance.][Definition: A Consumption is the processing of an instance of a language.] A consumer is impacted by the instance that it consumes. That is, it interprets that instance and bases future processing, in part, on the information that it believes was present in that instance. An instance can be consumed many times, by many consumers, and have many different impacts.

Generally, a language has a vocabulary that may use terms from one or more XML Namespaces (or none), each of which has a namespace name. Formally, [Definition: a language is an identifiable set of vocabulary terms with defined syntactic and semantic constraints. ] A vocabulary may or may not be related to an XML Namespace. By language, we just mean the set of elements and attributes, or components, used by a particular application. [Definition: A vocabulary is a set of terms]. The Name language consists of 3 terms: name, first, last. In order to identify the terms in the Name language, a namespace is assigned to the terms. We use the prefix "namens" to refer to that namespace. Other examples include the elements and attributes of XHTML 1.0 or the names of built-in functions in XPath 2.0. The Name language could consist of terms from other vocabularies, such as Dublin Core or UBL. These terms each have their own namespaces, illustrating that a language can comprise vocabularies from multiple namespaces.

The name language takes the 3 terms and specifies the constraints: that a name consists of a first and a last. [Definition: A language has a set of constraints that apply to the vocabulary terms in the language. ] These constraints can be defined in machine processable syntactic constraint languages such as XML Schema, human readable textual descriptions such as HTML descriptions, or are embodied in software. Languages may or may not be defined by a schema in any particular schema language. The constraints on a language will govern the membership of instances in the language, which may be considered the set of strings that are in the language.

In general, the intended meaning of a vocabulary term is scoped by the language in which the term is found. However, there is some expectation that terms drawn from an XML Namespace have a consistent meaning across all languages in which they are used. The namens terms might be used in other languages, but it is generally expected that they will still be "the same" in some meaningful sense.

[Definition: An instance is a specific, discrete sequence of terms]. Given that there are constraints on a language, an instance may or may not have membership in a language. Indeed, an instance may be a member of many languages, and there may be many instances that are members of a given language. The instances of the language are the units of exchange. Documents are instances of a language. They must have a root element in XML. A name document might be a name element as the root element. Alternatively, the name vocabulary may be used by a language such as purchase orders. The purchase order documents may contain name elements. Thus instances of a language are always part of a document and may be the entire document. XML instances (and all other instances of markup languages) consist of markup and content. In the name example, the first and last elements including the end markers are the markup. The values between the start and end markers are the content. An instance has an information model. There are a variety of data models within and without the W3C, and the one standardized by the W3C is the XML infoset.

A stylesheet processor is a consumer of the XML document that it is processing (the producer isn't mentioned); in the Web services context the roles of producer and consumer alternate as messages are passed back and forth.Note that most Web service specifications provide definitions of inputs and outputs. By our definitions, a Web service that updates its output schema is considered a new producer. A service that updates its input schema is a new consumer.

 


ext-vers-uml.png (17K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning

Dan Connolly

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 11:13 -0800, David Orchard wrote:
[text and a diagram]

Is that diagram the same one I saw a while ago? Ah... yes,
it is. So it corresponds to the .violet that you sent before.

I just checked them in and generated RDF:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet
revision 1.1
date: 2006/02/14 17:36:59;  author: connolly;  state: Exp;
from DO Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:48:35 -0800 , Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:13:26
-0800


and I'm starting to review it w.r.t. some earlier work
I did on change policies...

[VM] formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t.
recent TAG versioning terminology
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy.n3

Darn; telcon in 4 minutes... and I'm scribing...

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning

Dan Connolly

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:57 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> I just checked them in and generated RDF:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet
> revision 1.1
> date: 2006/02/14 17:36:59;  author: connolly;  state: Exp;

I made some edits:

----------
revision 1.2
date: 2006/02/15 01:53:13;  author: connolly;  state: Exp;  lines: +87
-75
changes to UML diagram:
- factored Communication out of Production/Consuption; moved common
language/text associations

- removed space from XML Vocabulary name to make it fragment-friendly

- fixed direction of Constraint generalizations
----------

still working on this other stuff...

> and I'm starting to review it w.r.t. some earlier work
> I did on change policies...
>
> [VM] formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t.
> recent TAG versioning terminology
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy.n3

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning

David Orchard
In reply to this post by Dan Connolly
I've never been able to get CVS access into W3C, despite Ian and Hugo's
best efforts, so W3C CVS doesn't work for me.  I'll keep editing on my
machine and punch out periodic updates, typically when reviews are done.

I agree with changing the arrows on constraint.

I don't agree with adding communication and changing instance to text.
If we're going to start mucking with the communication part, I'd rather
have producers and consumers as first class citizens rather than arc
labels.

I factored out xml vocabularies from vocabularies to try to be
independent of XML as we talked about.

I attach my latest in png and violet formats.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:57 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: [hidden email]; W3C TAG
> Subject: Re: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning
>
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 11:13 -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> [text and a diagram]
>
> Is that diagram the same one I saw a while ago? Ah... yes,
> it is. So it corresponds to the .violet that you sent before.
>
> I just checked them in and generated RDF:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.rdf
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet
> revision 1.1
> date: 2006/02/14 17:36:59;  author: connolly;  state: Exp;
> from DO Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:48:35 -0800 , Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:13:26
> -0800
>
>
> and I'm starting to review it w.r.t. some earlier work
> I did on change policies...
>
> [VM] formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t.
> recent TAG versioning terminology
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/changePolicy.n3
>
> Darn; telcon in 4 minutes... and I'm scribing...
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>


ext-vers-uml.violet (23K) Download Attachment
ext-vers-uml.png (17K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning

Dan Connolly
In reply to this post by Dan Connolly

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:23:48 -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> I've never been able to get CVS access into W3C, despite Ian and
Hugo's
> best efforts, so W3C CVS doesn't work for me.  I'll keep editing on my
> machine and punch out periodic updates, typically when reviews are done.

Maybe next week in France we can slay the CVS dragons. Meanwhile...

> I attach my latest in png and violet formats.

I checked those in:

 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.png 1.3
 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ext-vers-uml.violet  1.3

> I agree with changing the arrows on constraint.

Ah... some progress. :)

> I factored out xml vocabularies from vocabularies to try to be
> independent of XML as we talked about.

In today's TAG teleconference we talked about more in that direction.
I'll stay tuned.

Meanwhile...

> I don't agree with adding communication and changing instance to text.
> If we're going to start mucking with the communication part, I'd rather
> have producers and consumers as first class citizens rather than arc
> labels.

Hmm... producers and consumers _are_ first class citizens ... that's
what the Agent class box is for, no? I don't understand your point there.

My reason for changing Instance to Text was to appeal to this definition
from the Character Model spec:

  "Text is then defined as sequences of characters".
   -- 3.7 Summary
   http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-PerceptionsOutro


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: terminology section and diagram for ext/versioning

David Orchard
In reply to this post by Dan Connolly

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:[hidden email]]
>
<snipsteroni/>

> > I don't agree with adding communication and changing
> instance to text.
> > If we're going to start mucking with the communication part, I'd
> > rather have producers and consumers as first class citizens rather
> > than arc labels.
>
> Hmm... producers and consumers _are_ first class citizens ...
> that's what the Agent class box is for, no? I don't
> understand your point there.

they are arc labels from agent.  I had them previously as subtypes of
agents...  To which I'd make production/consumption as the arc labels..

>
> My reason for changing Instance to Text was to appeal to this
> definition from the Character Model spec:
>
>   "Text is then defined as sequences of characters".
>    -- 3.7 Summary
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-PerceptionsOutro
>

That make senses trying to be neutral, whereas I was still fighting the
keep XML and generic diagrams together fight, which I've now been
bludgeoned into submission.  I now like saying in the generic model that
"it" is text, and then in the XML version "it" is instance..  I like
that, and it might assuage other concerns..

Dave
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.