Re: [ubl] Comparing Codelist Schema Modules

[Burnsmarty@aol.com]

Tony,

 

Thanks for looking at the two schemas. Specifically what I understand is agreed to is that from the 7.1 version (based on Stephens 7.1 version) the simple type and complex type are to be retained.

 

The balance of elements of 7.1 -- the abstract type the global elements the global attributes are the components that are intended for UBL 1.1.

 

For the actual supplemental component spellings and datatypes we are trying to capture what Stephen and David and Michael and Tim are specifying. What is important to CLSC is the actual conversion of the data model to XMLSchema. Since the UBL committee was not willing to buy into the entire CLSC model in time for 1.0 (due to time for enough people to review the concepts to their satisfaction), the non-controversial parts are to be adopted for 1.0.

 

It was further agreed, to my understanding, that the definition of backwards compatability from UBL 1.1 versus UBL 1.0 is that valid instance files for 1.0 will still be valid in 1.1. No assumptions are made about the preservation of the structure of the schemas.

 

Marty