RE: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation

[robert.shanbaum@gerbercoburn.com]

Please forgive the ignorance my question betrays, but I'm new to this.

Am I reading that globally-defined elements must for some reason have unique
tags (such as "BuyerID" which would lead to a more fully-qualified names
like "BuyerParty/BuyerID"), and that locally-defined ones would allow the
use of more "generic" identifiers such as "ID" and "BuyerParty/ID"?

Coming from an OO background, this seems rather retrograde.  I can't
represent in an XML schema, a "Party" class from which "Buyer" and "Seller"
alike can descend?



-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:37 AM
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
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>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>