OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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




Mark
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7481 
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Carlson [mailto:dcarlson@ontogenics.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:04 PM
> To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
> To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:36 AM
> 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.
> 
> Mark C. wrote -
> 
> > 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.
> 
> But that's the problem: this is NOT the case.  It may be true 
> for ABIEs like
> PartyType, but there are *many* global elements declared for 
> each complexType
> definition such as CodeType or DateType.  For example, the 
> global elements
> declared in the 0p70 Invoice schema:
> 
> <xsd:element name="InvoiceCurrencyCode" type="cct:CodeType"/>
> <xsd:element name="LineitemCountQuantity" type="cct:QuantityType"/>
> <xsd:element name="PricingCurrencyCode" type="cct:CodeType"/>
> <xsd:element name="TaxCurrencyCode" type="cct:CodeType"/>
> <xsd:element name="TaxPointDate" type="cct:DateType"/>
> 
> Similarly, it seems likely that there will be many global 
> elements declared for
> the same complexType in cases like AddressType (right now, I 
> think we have a
> problem in 0p70 schemas with exact duplicates of the same 
> AddressType and
> PartyType content with different complexType names; this 
> issue is already in
> the feedback spreadsheet).

This is a problem with LCSC following the rules, not the rule itself
> 
> 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.
> 
> Mark C. wrote -
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Use of local elements does NOT prohibit consistent use of a 
> semantically
> unambiguous business language.
> I see the unambiguious business language semantics defined 
> primarily by the
> type definitions, which are the same for both local and global element
> declarations.

Ah, but there is the difference.  I see it as both because I have to map between lord knows how many schemas and how many applications and I need consistency. 

----------------------------------------------------------------
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]