RE: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Re: validation of UBL Schemas fo rrelease 0p70]

["Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>]

Title: Message

The UBL schemas ought to define target namespaces.  Here's a table tying together the definitions from the NDR document with the filenames from the 0p70 schema release:

 

(from wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-19.doc)		(schema module from the 0p70 schema release)
Purpose	Namespace name
Common Leaf Types  -- this is where Basic Business Information Entities are defined.	urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonLeafTypes[TBD version info]	(no such file)
Common Aggregate Types - this is where Aggregate BIE's used across various domains are defined.	urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonAggregateTypes[TBD version info]	UBL_Library_0p70_Reusable.xsd
Order Domain - this is where ordering-related message types and their order-specific ABIE's are defined.	urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order[TBD version info]	UBL_Library_0p70_Order.xsd
Invoice Domain - this is where invoicing-related message types and their invoicing-specific ABIE's are defined.	urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Invoice[TBD version info]	UBL_Library_0p70_Invoice.xsd

 

The NDR document does not specify the namespace URI for CoreComponentTypes.xsd.  We ought to address that in a subsequent release.

 

The various "domain" vocabularies should have namespace names analogous to those for Order, Invoice (DespatchAdvice, OrderCancellation, etc.)

 

Since the NDR document leaves versioning information in the namespace name "TBD" I think we should continue with the precedent set in the 0p65 release giving names like:

 

urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonAggregateTypes : 1.0:0.70

 

Once we have a separate schema module defining our BBIE's we can fill in the "(no such file)" for the "Common Leaf Types" module.  Note that the absence of this file in the 0p70 package is related to the recent realization that we currently have no standalone/separable definition (in the model) of our BBIE's: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200301/msg00066.html

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:31 PM
To: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] [Fwd: [ubl-lcsc] Re: validation of UBL Schemas for release 0p70]

I think this question is better answered by someone from NDR.

Can you respond to this list and i shall forward to Ken and the LC list.


-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	[ubl-lcsc] Re: validation of UBL Schemas for release 0p70
Date:	Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:30:59 -0500
From:	"G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
To:	UBL LCSC <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>

Can anyone help me understand the committee plans for namespaces?



What I'm missing in 0p70 that I used in 0p65 was the equivalent to:



  <xsd:schema targetNamespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1.0:0.65"

              xmlns:po="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1.0:0.65" ...

    ...

    <xsd:element name="Order" type="po:OrderType"/>



In 0p70 I have:



<xsd:schema ...

        <xsd:element name="Order" type="OrderDetailsType" ...



>From this I understand that the 0p70 XSD describes a vocabulary in "no 
namespace", when I had anticipated that each document type would have their 
own namespace as was hinted at in 0p65.



My stylesheets have been keyed on the namespace in my preliminary work ... 
is this use of no namespace a planned change in direction?



Thanks!



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

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