[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: FW: [oagis-users] UserArea Extensions for Version 8.0]
"junk" is such a loaded term Eve :-) I believe that if you
take XML Namespaces to heart then you arrive at a model where it's perfectly
reasonable to allow elements of unforeseen namespaces to ride along in UBL
instance documents. Just because in the textual view of the document,
elements from non-UBL namespaces are visible, that doesn't mean they need be
visible to UBL-centric processing logic. In the infoset, each node is part
of a namespace right? If you're processing UBL nodes, you're not even
going to notice non-UBL ones.
To Jessica Glace's point about open content
being useful early in a schema's lifecycle... I think you've done a great job of
capturing the common wisdom, but I don't see it that way. Yeah, if the
reason for using open content were to allow flexibility during schema
development then I'd be against it too. The reason for open content
is not "flexibility" really -- it's "composability" (is that a word ?!?).
The point of open content is that after UBL is "in the can" someone comes along
with a really cool vocabulary like, oh, say the Dublin Core, or say some vocabulary that would
let you track
the provenance some element, or any of the myriad kinds of markup that
haven't even been developed yet; and an open content model would allow a valid
UBL document instance to carry that unforeseen markup. We wouldn't
sacrafice any clarity or precision as far as our domain is concerned ... we'd
just be providing the plug points for completely orthogonal domains -- that's
the whole point of namespaces isn't it?
Doesn't it seem a bit heavy-handed to dictate the complete structure of an instance document when we've got the nifty namespace mechanism ready-made for the purpose of cleanly separating concerns. Wouldn't it be more neighborly to define a namespace that can coexist with others?
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May
29, 2002 3:53 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc:
ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: FW:
[oagis-users] UserArea Extensions for
Version 8.0]
I would be
concerned about putting wildcards everywhere. It would mean
that the
vanilla UBL library would allow all kinds of junk, and XSD
validation would
mean little. But there may be locations where we want
to use it
strategically. (Eventually we'll need a rule about wildcard
usage
anyway...)
Eve
Burcham,
Bill wrote:
> When I look at that BOD extension example (below) I see an
"open
> content" model (as described by Roger Costello in this
ancient
> correspondence
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2000JanMar/0159.html>and
> in part three of his eggcelent XML Schema
Tutorial
> <http://www.xfront.com/xml-schema.html>). I think UBL should define an
> open content model,
i.e. just about everywhere in a valid UBL document
> instance, it should
be easy to hang elements from non-UBL namespaces.
> What do
you think?
>
> -Bill
--
Eve
Maler
+1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler
@ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC