CPE Dictionary Change

[Harold Booth-2]

Dave and I were having a conversation about the CPE Dictionary and we would like
to suggest the following simplification to the dictionary schema.  The current
schema allows a CPE to have many notes, regardless of language.  We would like
to suggest that for a given a CPE only one note of a given language should be
permitted.  This will simplify the data model for the notes and it won't be
necessary to implement some sort of grouping of note content and languages which
could conceivably be possibly with the current schema.  (i.e. A note with
contentA in language X and Y and another note with contentB in language X and
Z).  Thanks.

Harold

[Ken Lassesen-3]

May I suggest a slight modification as shown below (for both CPE and
OVAL)

<notes xml:lang="en-US">
   <note/>
   <note/>
   <note/>
</notes>

I believe it goes to the intent but discourages run-on-concepts.


Ken Lassesen,
Office 206-734-4718 Home: 360-297-4717   Cell: 360-509-2402  Skype:
Ken.Lassesen
IM: [hidden email]  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic message may contain
confidential and privileged information and is intended only for use by
the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom it was addressed. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently
delete and destroy the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Booth [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] CPE Dictionary Change

Dave and I were having a conversation about the CPE Dictionary and we
would like to suggest the following simplification to the dictionary
schema.  The current schema allows a CPE to have many notes, regardless
of language.  We would like to suggest that for a given a CPE only one
note of a given language should be permitted.  This will simplify the
data model for the notes and it won't be necessary to implement some
sort of grouping of note content and languages which could conceivably
be possibly with the current schema.  (i.e. A note with contentA in
language X and Y and another note with contentB in language X and Z).
Thanks.

Harold

[Andrew Buttner]

>May I suggest a slight modification as shown below (for both CPE and
>OVAL)
>
><notes xml:lang="en-US">
>   <note/>
>   <note/>
>   <note/>
></notes>
>
>I believe it goes to the intent but discourages run-on-concepts.

Ken,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this last sentence.  Can you
expand on it some more?  What do you mean by "run-on-concepts"?

Thanks
Drew

[Andrew Buttner]

Note that there is no way to enforce this type of requirement with XML
Schema.  The best we could do is put this in the documentation.  OVAL
handles this type of additional validation by adding Schematron
support.  I don't think we want to add this in at this time, of course
that could be up for discussion.

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harold Booth [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:04 PM
>To: cpe-discussion-list CPE Community Forum
>Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] CPE Dictionary Change
>
>Dave and I were having a conversation about the CPE Dictionary
>and we would like
>to suggest the following simplification to the dictionary
>schema.  The current
>schema allows a CPE to have many notes, regardless of
>language.  We would like
>to suggest that for a given a CPE only one note of a given
>language should be
>permitted.  This will simplify the data model for the notes
>and it won't be
>necessary to implement some sort of grouping of note content
>and languages which
>could conceivably be possibly with the current schema.  (i.e.
>A note with
>contentA in language X and Y and another note with contentB in
>language X and
>Z).  Thanks.
>
>Harold
>

[Harold Booth-2]

Wouldn't adding a unique constraint like the following edit work?

<xsd:element name="notes" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1">
  <xsd:complexType>
   <xsd:sequence>
     <xsd:element name="note" type="cpe_dict:textType" minOccurs="1"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </xsd:sequence>
  </xsd:complexType>
  <xsd:unique name="langNote">
    <xsd:selector xpath="./cpe_dict:note"></xsd:selector>
    <xsd:field xpath="@xml:lang"></xsd:field>
  </xsd:unique>
</xsd:element>

Our thinking was there would be a single comment for a given language per CPE.
I know I am coming at this new, so does anyone believe there is value in
allowing multiple comments in the same language for a given CPE?

-Harold

Quoting "Buttner, Drew" <[hidden email]>:

> Note that there is no way to enforce this type of requirement with XML
> Schema.  The best we could do is put this in the documentation.  OVAL
> handles this type of additional validation by adding Schematron
> support.  I don't think we want to add this in at this time, of course
> that could be up for discussion.
>
>  
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Harold Booth [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:04 PM
> >To: cpe-discussion-list CPE Community Forum
> >Subject: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] CPE Dictionary Change
> >
> >Dave and I were having a conversation about the CPE Dictionary
> >and we would like
> >to suggest the following simplification to the dictionary
> >schema.  The current
> >schema allows a CPE to have many notes, regardless of
> >language.  We would like
> >to suggest that for a given a CPE only one note of a given
> >language should be
> >permitted.  This will simplify the data model for the notes
> >and it won't be
> >necessary to implement some sort of grouping of note content
> >and languages which
> >could conceivably be possibly with the current schema.  (i.e.
> >A note with
> >contentA in language X and Y and another note with contentB in
> >language X and
> >Z).  Thanks.
> >
> >Harold
> >
>

[Ken Lassesen-3]

Run on concepts  -- i.e. run on sentences. In notes there may be a need
to have a series of points,
" a CPE only one note of a given language should be permitted."
Means that instead of each point being distinct, they are merge into one


<note> Point A blah blah blah</note>  
<note> Point B blah blah blah</note>
<note> Point c blah blah blah</note>


You have
<note> Point A blah blah blah Point B blah blah blah Point c blah blah
blah</note>

This later is harder to read, difficult to decompose, and prone to the
classic telegram problem  "CONCERNING HOUSE PRICE NO PRICE IS TOO HIGH"

Ken Lassesen,
Office 206-734-4718 Home: 360-297-4717   Cell: 360-509-2402  Skype:
Ken.Lassesen
IM: [hidden email]  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic message may contain
confidential and privileged information and is intended only for use by
the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom it was addressed. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently
delete and destroy the original message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Buttner, Drew [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:03 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] CPE Dictionary Change

>May I suggest a slight modification as shown below (for both CPE and
>OVAL)
>
><notes xml:lang="en-US">
>   <note/>
>   <note/>
>   <note/>
></notes>
>
>I believe it goes to the intent but discourages run-on-concepts.

Ken,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this last sentence.  Can you
expand on it some more?  What do you mean by "run-on-concepts"?

Thanks
Drew

[Harold Booth-2]

If this type of use-case is desirable then I would be satisfied with the change
suggested by Ken.  The question I have then is would there be a situation when a
CPE dictionary would need to contain multiple languages?  In other words would
the notes element need to be modified to allow more than one instance, one
instance for each language?  This would then move the constraint I suggested to
be applied to the notes element instead of the note element.

-Harold

Quoting Ken Lassesen <[hidden email]>:

> Run on concepts  -- i.e. run on sentences. In notes there may be a need
> to have a series of points,
> " a CPE only one note of a given language should be permitted."
> Means that instead of each point being distinct, they are merge into one
>
>
> <note> Point A blah blah blah</note>  
> <note> Point B blah blah blah</note>
> <note> Point c blah blah blah</note>
>
>
> You have
> <note> Point A blah blah blah Point B blah blah blah Point c blah blah
> blah</note>
>
> This later is harder to read, difficult to decompose, and prone to the
> classic telegram problem  "CONCERNING HOUSE PRICE NO PRICE IS TOO HIGH"
>
> Ken Lassesen,
> Office 206-734-4718 Home: 360-297-4717   Cell: 360-509-2402  Skype:
> Ken.Lassesen
> IM: [hidden email]  
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> The information contained in this electronic message may contain
> confidential and privileged information and is intended only for use by
> the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom it was addressed. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently
> delete and destroy the original message.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Buttner, Drew [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:03 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [CPE-DISCUSSION-LIST] CPE Dictionary Change
>
> >May I suggest a slight modification as shown below (for both CPE and
> >OVAL)
> >
> ><notes xml:lang="en-US">
> >   <note/>
> >   <note/>
> >   <note/>
> ></notes>
> >
> >I believe it goes to the intent but discourages run-on-concepts.
>
> Ken,
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this last sentence.  Can you
> expand on it some more?  What do you mean by "run-on-concepts"?
>
> Thanks
> Drew
>

[Andrew Buttner]

The question I have then is would there be
>a situation when a
>CPE dictionary would need to contain multiple languages?

yes


>This would then move the
>constraint I suggested to
>be applied to the notes element instead of the note element.

I agree and I will work on a change to the schema that places the
xml:lang attribute on the <notes> element and only allows one <notes>
per language.  So the final solution would look like:

<notes xml:lang="en-US">
   <note/>
   <note/>
   <note/>
</notes>
<notes xml:lang="de-DE">
   <note/>
   <note/>
   <note/>
</notes>

Thanks
Drew