RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Ken,

Respectfully: It's not that you're not getting your points across - you
are. I just don't agree with them. There's a difference.:) I don't
believe that one should be forced to use Schematron in addition to W3C
Schema if they don't have to.

Having requirements for an initiative is not equivalent to "imposing two
trading partners' limits on the whole user community of UBL.".
Restricting users from being able to define restrictions for data types
is, I believe, imposing a standard's limits on the whole user community
that might implement it.

Joe 

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:37 PM
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types

At 2006-05-04 12:07 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
><Quote>
>At 2006-05-04 11:31 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >The same would apply for data type restrictions - if there were some 
> >overriding, unavoidable reason that a trading partner could not honor

> >a
>
> >length for a description of (say) 30 characters, and they instead 
> >sent you 100, then there needs to be requirements for handling this 
> >situation (e.g. is it ok to truncate the characters beyond the
30th?).
>
>Then put that in a business rule (i.e. asserted using Schematron), 
>don't change the constraints of the expression of the information in 
>the document vocabulary.
></Quote>
>
>Recognizing the high value of Schematron and its capabilities beyond 
>those of W3C Schema, why should someone be forced to used Schematron in

>addition to W3C Schema when W3C Schema already has facilities for this 
>requirement? (e.g. xsd:minLength, xsd:maxLength, xsd:Length)
>
>I'm very sorry if I am not seeing the intended value.

I'm very sorry I'm not getting my point across.  I feel I keep repeating
myself and doing so is taking an awful lot of time.

If you put it in the schema, you are constraining the vocabulary.  The
vocabulary should be considered sacrosanct and untouchable.  Throughout
programming it is considered good technical practice to use layering
(protocols, implementations, constraints, operating system user
interfaces, etc.) where one combines solving different problems with
different appropriate layered solutions rather than creating (and having
to change) one monolithic solution that impacts on all users.

Using Schematron one can layer on top of the schemas their own
restrictive rules (business or technical).  If you want to restrict the
length of a description, Joe, that's fine ... go ahead and do it, just
don't change the definition of UBL doing so, and the *only* normative
component of UBL is the schema expression.  Those files are really
sacrosanct and untouchable.

And it doesn't make sense to impose one implementation's limits on the
whole user community of UBL.

And it doesn't make sense to impose two trading partners' limits on the
whole user community of UBL.

UBL is defined so that everyone can use it ... why do you insist on
trying to change it?  If you have your own restrictions then implement
your own restrictions without changing UBL as that changes it for
everyone.

I have said it many times and you keep asking me why again and again
that I don't want to use W3C Schema facilities or make W3C Schema
changes to the normative expressions , but I feel it is inappropriate to
modify the W3C Schema expression since that is normatively described by
the committee and, therefore, should not be touched.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16
Also for XSLT/XSL-FO training:    Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04
Also for XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training:Birmingham,England 2006-05-22/25
Also for XSLT/XSL-FO training:    Copenhagen,Denmark 2006-05-08/11
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing the
UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe
before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/
Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/