RE: [ubl-cmsc] Assembly Rules

["Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>]

Matt:

Remember that we may have cases where people want to take our schema
components and create new message types out of them. This is not strictly
"extension," but it does require a mechanism. I say we go with the Assembly
rules for this use case.

Cheers,

Arofan

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Gertner [mailto:matthew.gertner@schemantix.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:46 AM
To: 'Eve L. Maler'; ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-cmsc] Assembly Rules


Totally agree. Any dissenters?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: ubl-cmsc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ubl-cmsc] Assembly Rules
> 
> 
> I got the impression that since the UBL effort will produce canonical 
> document types, and since we're planning to allow for 
> customization of 
> those types, building up new document types from the 
> component pieces isn't 
> really an immediate need.  But I'm willing to believe that my 
> lack of ebXML 
> experience may have led me astray.
> 
>          Eve
> 
> At 04:22 PM 11/16/01 +0100, Matthew Gertner wrote:
> >6) Do we still need assembly rules? There has been 
> discussion that the
> >construction of larger BIEs from core components using 
> standard schema
> >languages eliminates the need for a separate assembly language.
> 
> --
> Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>