[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation
Dave C. wrote - > The most difficult problem is with mapping (in UML) a global > element to the namespace in which it is declared. The global element may be > declared in a different schema module, and possibly a different XML > namespace, than the complexType or simpleType on which it is based. Some XML > Schemas (e.g. ACORD) use one very large schema file in one namespace; global > elements are quite straightforward here. Other schemas (e.g. OAGIS 8.0 and 8.1) > use a very large number of schema modules to support reuse and abstraction, > which greatly complicates mapping global elements to schema modules and > namespaces. UML has not yet settled on a rule for determining schema document > modularity and their namespace assignment. But if we are consistent across schema modules on a unique one-to-one association of an element to a type, then this does not appear to be a problem. Dave C. wrote - > My interest in NDR recommendations is more general than UBL. > I'm looking for a set of industry best practices. I am still testing > alternative approaches to support global element mapping to UML and expect to find a > workable solution, but use of local elements (or restricted use of global > elements in some situations) simplifies the mapping and will reduce long-term > maintenance of UML models used for system integration. So I read this to mean that local makes it easier, but global works. Given the benefits of a single, semantically unambiguous universal business language, global still seems the way to go. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]