Re: [rmf-dev] Reading a ReqIF file

[Kay Münch <Kay_Muench@xxxxxx>]

Hi Mark, 

> thank you very much for reporting this issue.
> 
> I recently created some more test cases which checked the behavior of the
> tool extensions and figured out the same problem which you pointed out in
> your email: 
> (1) the serialization should not have any dependencies do the
> ProR configuration model 
Yep!

> (2) the serialization should not complain if
> there are third party tool extensions in the model 
Yes. Neither the serialization nor the deserialization should do anything 
other than ignoring that extensions.

But thinking about that, the demand of checking the referential integrity 
comes into my mind. 
Think about creating a datatype definition within the 'core content' including 
an identifier, that will be used as a reference within the tool extensions.
When creating a model useable by ProR programmatically, there should be an 
easy to use component to check the conformance of the model with the 
requirements of ProR. It should complain if references like that above are 
incorrectly set.
Can you give me a pointer if this is still included?

> (3) If an EMF package
> is registered for some tool extensions then the serialization should
> create the appropriate java classes
Ok. Sounds interesting. The 'EMF-book' will be on my desk before the end of 
the week, I hope...

> In order to fix the handling of (third-party) tool extension I need to
> properly make use of the EMF xsd:any mechanism. A bug that requests the
> fix is already available:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=376942 Fixing this bug is
> number one on my list :-)
Thanks.
 
> 
> Concerning your problem reading RMF 0.1.0 files in RMF 0.2.0:
> * you need to update the reqif XML namespace to
>   "http://www.omg.org/spec/ReqIF/20110401/reqif.xsd";
>   (the 0.1.0 reqif namespace did not comply to the ReqIF 1.0.1 standard)
> * In RMF 0.1.0 the XML serialization of the tool extensions was using the
> xsi:type concept. Unfortunately, many XML schema validation engines have
> problems with this concept. (or I did not find out how to properly
> configure the parser)
>    Thus theRMF 0.2.0  tool extensions are written in an XML format that
> doesn't require any xsi:type attributes. In order to read existing RMF
> 0.1.0 files you will need to remove the tool extensions from the XML file.
Short after getting into the observed problems, I wrote a class just for this 
purpose :-)

Best regards
	Kay