[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Fw: [ubl-lcsc] ccts Annotation Structure (fwd)
Although I agree with you in principle, the problem is that if we were to produce enormous schemas with tons and tons of documentation embedded, carrying some ubl namespace, people who wanted to use them with any kind of hope of acceptable performance would have to strip the documentation away *and* change the namespace. It was because of this concern (that is, allowing people to say they use UBL schemas) that we came up with the idea of two sets of schemas carrying the same namespaces names (that is, schemas A and A' being both in namespace UBL:A if the only difference is documentation.) Perhaps we should play with the idea of having A in namespace UBL:A and A' in namespace UBL:A' ? (where UBL:A is just a shorthand reference to the UBL namespaces, not to be taken as implying that it is an UBL namespace name...) Chin Chee-Kai wrote: > Again, this two schemas per model rule is also something > I feel is rather stringent to be stated as a rule, or that > it is redundant. > > Developers and users will find their own most suitable form > of optimizing for processing. It shouldn't be a specified > form of rule for such purposes. > > > > > Best Regards, > Chin Chee-Kai > SoftML > Tel: +65-6820-2979 > Fax: +65-6743-7875 > Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net > http://SoftML.Net/ > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Lisa-Aeon wrote: > > >>>I am forwarding this from the FPSC and LCSC since this has to do with the >>>embedded documentation in the schema. The only rule we have in the >>>checklist is R96, which states: >>> >>>"Two schemas shall be developed for each standard. One schema shall be a >>>run-time schema devoid of documentation. One schema shall be a fully >>>annotated schema that employs XHTML for the annotations." >>> >>>There is not description of how it is to be used and can be intrepreted in >>>many different ways. Shall we join this discussion? >>> >>>I know that we voted on using xsd:documentation and not xsd:appinfo, for >>>embedded documentation, I think there should be a rule saying this. >>> >>>Lisa >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Chin Chee-Kai" <cheekai@softml.net> >>>To: "UBL FPSC" <ubl-fpsc@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>Cc: "UBL LCSC" <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:36 AM >>>Subject: [ubl-lcsc] ccts Annotation Structure (fwd) >>> >>> >>> >>>>This was sent out on 24th Jun to LC. I'm resending to FP and >>>>cc-ing to LC again to request for comments on the proposed >>>>change in structure for storing documentation information >>>>in proper element than in attribute. >>>> >>>>Please kindly take a look at the following and send in >>>>your comments or it'll get implemented as proposed. >>>> >>>>Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Chin Chee-Kai >>>>SoftML >>>>Tel: +65-6820-2979 >>>>Fax: +65-6743-7875 >>>>Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net >>>>http://SoftML.Net/ >>>> >>>> >>>>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:59:02 +0800 (SGT) >>>>From: Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net> >>>>To: UBL LCSC <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>Cc: Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com> >>>>Subject: [ubl-lcsc] ccts Annotation Structure >>>> >>>>Doing some review on the schemas myself, I have a growing >>>>urge to reposition from 0p70's style of combining the documentation >>>>into a single humongous element using attributes to hold data >>>>into one that uses sub-elements to hold the documentation >>>>information. >>>> >>>>The suggested change goes something like this. Using "AddressType" >>>>as an example, the change is illustrated as follows: >>>> >>>>Present style (0p80 alpha, inherited from 0p70): >>>>================================================ >>>> >>>><xsd:complexType name="AddressType"> >>>> <xsd:annotation> >>>> <xsd:documentation> >>>> <ccts:ABIE dictionaryEntryName="Address. Details" definition="The >>>>particulars that identify and locate the place where someone lives or is >>>>situated, or where an organisation is situated." objectClass="Address" >>>>propertyTerm="Details" representationTerm="Details" /> >>>> </xsd:documentation> >>>> </xsd:annotation> >>>> ..... >>>></xsd:complexType> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Proposed change: >>>>================================================ >>>> >>>><xsd:complexType name="AddressType"> >>>> <xsd:annotation> >>>> <xsd:documentation> >>>> <ccts:BIE> >>>> <ccts:BIEType>ABIE</ccts:BIEType> >>>> <ccts:DictionaryEntryName>Address. >>> >>>Details</ccts:DictionaryEntryName> >>> >>>> <ccts:Definition> >>>> The particulars that identify and locate the place where >>>> someone lives or is situated, or where an organisation is >>>> situated. >>>> </ccts:Definition> >>>> <ccts:ObjectClass>Address</ccts:ObjectClass> >>>> <ccts:PropertyTerm>Details</ccts:PropertyTerm> >>>> <ccts:RepresentationTerm>Details</ccts:RepresentationTerm> >>>> </ccts:BIE> >>>> </xsd:documentation> >>>> </xsd:annotation> >>>> ..... >>>></xsd:complexType> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>This proposed change will require some modification to the file >>>>"CoreComponentParameters-0.8-draft-3.xsd". Also, other tools >>>>or applications that had depended on attribute values in 0p70 >>>>or 0p80 alpha will need to be modified to extract the data from >>>>the new sub-elements. >>>> >>>>In particular, the BIE type has been moved from the ccts namespace >>>>to the data space contained within the proposed well-known sub-element >>>><ccts:BIEType>. The parent <ccts:BIE> element will also be fixed >>>>instead of 0p70's changing element name according to the BIE type. >>>>The rationale is that BIE Type is as much a piece of meta data of >>>>the complexType or element reference as other meta data such >>>>as property term and representation term. There appears to be >>>>no clear reason why BIE type should have a special status of >>>>being recorded in the ccts' namespace as an element name instead >>>>of being stored as a data in the data space like other meta data. >>>> >>>>The new <ccts:BIE> parent element will then be a fixed structure >>>>applicable for all BIE documentation. This means also that we >>>>can reduce the various documentation types defined for each BIE >>>>type (found in "CoreComponentParameters-0.8-draft-3.xsd") into >>>>just 1 BIE documentation type applicable for all BIE types. >>>> >>>>These changes, however, are not expected to be too substantial >>>>in nature. But the clarity and conformance to how types are >>>>generally defined within UBL schemas will be the benefits gained >>>>from this proposed change. >>>> >>>>I'd like to find out what kind of response people have on this >>>>suggestion, and whether I've missed out any important consequences >>>>or effects the change will bring to anyone. >>>> >>>>Comments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Chin Chee-Kai >>>>SoftML >>>>Tel: +65-6820-2979 >>>>Fax: +65-6743-7875 >>>>Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net >>>>http://SoftML.Net/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting >>> >>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting >>> >>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php >>> >>> >>>--- >>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >>>Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/2003 >>> >>> >>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php >>> >>> > > > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442 Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]