[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] xsd for acc
Hi Danny I replied offlist accidentally (forgot to include UBL-Dev in recipients) but just realised I missed the point. I mentioned that the CCT schema in UBL was mainly there for historical reasons (originally it wasn't too well understood that core datatypes didn't have to derive in schema from schema expressions of CCTs). There is no link required between a datatype and a core component type outside of the modeling. Now I see you may be asking about CCs in general. Again no schema link is required, not could it be in the CCTS where there can be no mention of XML because implementation at that level is out of scope for CCTS (taken up though in ATG NDRs, etc and in UBL's NDR, etc). There is no requirement for compliance with CCTS to do anything specific to XML. It could all be done in the model if desired. UBL and others have chosen to write NDRs which make rules about *how* to comply with CCTS (like implementa- tion guides for CCTS if you like). It was a choice to try to align the XML-specific implementation factors across some standards such as those I was most aware of which were OAGIS, UBL and later ATG NDR. The same was in parallel happening in NDRs derived from these (such as for US Gov) - by inheritance I suppose. This could be said 1. to be just incidental to CCTS 2. in some ways facilitated by CCTS 3. not required by CCTS. How the XML implements the CCTS is in many ways up to the implementers. This historically would have been a key factor in whether to create schemas for core components. It was not considered that for UBL there would be any strong reason to include CCs in schemas - since the schemas were delivered in advance of efforts to determine what CCs the BIEs would require (which would have to be decided later in comparison with other groups' BIEs and involving CEFACT TBG17 efforts). The CCTS seems to only provide for linking BIEs somehow to CCs and (even without XML consideration of course) doesn't seem to me to have said how to do this - and if it did it would by nature of CCTS be confined to model layer. Maybe the interoperability due to CCTS is only likely to happen in model layer, and only incidentally as by-product of this at any schema level or other implementation-specific (like EDI) layer. Other interoperability however, not against CCTS rules, has been sought at schema level through some degree of deliberate NDR alignment (not all the way though). Neither of the leading groups though (UBL, OAGIS and ATG) had CCs in their schemas when this happened (though we'd thought about it). So the NDRs won't converge easily on this, I guess. All the best Steve 2008/6/20 Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>: > Dear all, > I was comparing UN/CEFACT with UBL and notice that in the UBL standard there is an XSD for the ACC but in the UN/CEFACT has only an xsd for the ABIE. > Sorry not a question I should ask here ! But still it remains strange perhaps that is because UBL is fully based on CCTS. > kind regards, > Danny > > > -- Stephen D. Green Partner SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606 Associate Director Document Engineering Services http://www.documentengineeringservices.com http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]