Re: [ubl-lcsc] Question to my XML-Schema

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

if i understand you correctly , i think the question is involves the 
need to separate the meta-data from the data.  

we actual have two vocabularies involved in our work:

1. the actual UBL vocabulary (with things like 'Party', 'Address', etc..)
and
2. the UBL schema vocabulary (with things like "entity name", 
"ID","datatype")

I am not sure why we would want to break the second type into two more 
sets - isn't one enough?  What is the thinking with the Naming and 
Design team?

Stuhec, Gunther wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>you have seen, that the program for all additional information except
>"Entity, Id, Datatype, Contains UBL BIEs" generates a element
>"xsd:documentation" inside of the elementgroup "annotation". Make it sense,
>that we put that kind of information into additional subelements (for
>examples for the classes, terms and contextes respectively)? Do you see any
>benefits if we generate an additional schema-language, that includes all
>that kind of information?
>
>Regards,
>
>	Gunther
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>.
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142