Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

Further on substiutionGroups:

Is the reason for using a substitutionGroup and an abstract element so that
one can change the enumerations without needing to change the namespace?

I was perhaps the main proponent for allowing 'plug-and-play' so I feel a
little
responsible here; since last week and Jon's explanation of the desire *not*
to allow the updating of a codelist Schema *without* corresponding changes
in namespaces in the whole of the UBL set of Schemas, I now feel convinced
by the argument. This is unfortunate in one sense because I now find myself
seeming hypocritical in arguing against the very thing I so persistently
asked for.
Nevertheless I'd be happier if we all agreed whether we go for allowing
changes
without namespace changes or not doing so. This decision, I think, would
have major
implications (correct me XSD experts if I'm wrong) on whether we use
substitutionGroups as proposed by the example and instructions from the
CLSC.
(The finer details of what is involved with either abstract elements or
abstract types
I admit I'm new to so I'd rely on what others have said but there does seem
to be
a lot of advice around about this which seems to support my concerns at
least.)

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:16 PM
Subject: [ubl] A Codelist Issue


> I'm bringing this issue to the ubl list as Jon asks since I think there
may
> be a few who
> echo the concern that the proposed Codelist mechanism uses
> substitutionGroups.
>
> From all I can find out, substitution has been ruled out for since the
> middle of last year
> by NDRSC.
>
> There are serious recommendations against it's use being expressed by
> several groups
> outside of UBL. Marty has stated that there is no other way to do what is
> necessary
> for the codelist methodology. This concerns me - are we trying to do
> something more
> than is actually necessary since other groups and NDRSC have confidently
> deemed it
> something to be ruled out? I have read very few 'pros' for the use of
> substitutionGroups
> in particular and a great many 'cons'. Can others verify this?
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
> To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:03 PM
> Subject: [ubl] Use ubl list for cross-SC discussions
>
>
> > UBL TC,
> >
> > Resolution of remaining issues leading to the generation of 1.0
> > schemas is being seriously hindered by multiple discussions taking
> > place on separate SC lists and, worse yet, on ad hoc private
> > lists.  This has to stop.  Please use the main ubl list for any
> > matter that crosses SC boundaries.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php
> .
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php
.
>
>