Re: Fwd: [ubl-hisc] Proposed XPath information instance

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2005-03-01 14:00 +0000, Stephen Green wrote:
>I think sufficient if the cardinality is placed in the XML details files 
>but there is one
>reason I consider for reflecting cardinality here: it seems possible that
>the 2.1, 2.2, etc might be mistaken for cardinality and so adding 
>cardinality here
>with an appropriate notation might help clarify things. However, using Kleene
>single character notation rather than the more familiar 1..n, 0..1, 0..n
>(and in one case - AddressLine/Line - 0..7 or 1..7) seems less clear and
>I'd favour the 1..n, etc (for the sake of the less technical readers of 
>the specs).

Accepted ... this is a good point.

>Naming whether verbose or not is still, I think, likely to need to be flexible
>and changable.

Sure ... I just wanted to get ready for the next publication.

>That said, verbose/human readable is usually considered
>the way to go with XML and I'd keep to this trend.

Agreed ... that was the way I was leaning.

>I'd keep a little where
>appropriate to the UBL NDR like having lower camel case for attribute names
>and upper camel case for element names.

Hmmmmmmmmm ... I suppose ... not something I've embraced in the past, but I 
will try it.

>Other things to improve extensibility and future changes of the file 
>format might
>be to create a Schema for the details and have it be easily customized but 
>that
>could come later perhaps.

May I use RELAX-NG please?

>As I said earlier, I consider that there is a very happy overlap here with
>the forming Small Business SC in that the Small Business Subset needs
>an appropriate developer/machine readable normative format for defining
>the subset. In that case I'd tend to term the file here termed a 'detail file'
>as a 'subset definition file' but of course from HISc's point of view it isn't
>just a file for subsets but could be used for the superset.

And I'll be producing the files for the complete set anyway, so it would 
really be the wrong name.

>In that case
>'data definition file' is what I might call it or more specifically 
>'subset data
>definition file' (this is because it is similar to a 'schema definition 
>language'
>file but not quite the same and not to be confused with the same).
>This would lead me towards a more simlar name to the above term when
>naming the actual individual file. I'd keep to the .xml extension to help
>tools know how to open it.

Very good point.

>Then I'd think of something like, let me think...
>
>say for an Order subset data definition file... maybe 
>OrderSubsetDefinition.xml
>when it is the subset (SBS say) used and then for correctness 
>OrderDefinition.xml
>when it is the superset

Oh, now I see where you are going ... but what if there are many 
subsets?  Then I would say OrderCancellation-XPath.xml or 
OrderCancellation-Definition.xml for the complete file and 
OrderCancellation-SBS-XPath.xml or OrderCancellation-SBS-Definition.xml for 
the SBS subset.

My hesitation to use a word like "Definition" is that it might be used in 
the future as part of the name of a document type.  For now I think I'll 
stick to "XPath".

Thanks, Steve!

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

--
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/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Breast Cancer Awareness  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal