[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
Mark,
Are you arguing with the desirability of:
Extensibility?
Substitution Groups?
Both?
The use of substitution groups complements the suggested use of unions in
extending code lists in wd-ubl-cmsc-cmguidelines-1.0.html. I think that without
substitution groups, this mechanism doesn't work.
When a user community needs to extend or restrict UBL for their own
reasons, it is desirable to use a mechanism that forces the implementer to
declare the extensions explicitly. Substitution groups does this because in
order to validate an instance the definition of the substituting type must be
present. Also, the designer of the base schemas ensures the type
consistency of the substitutable information.
I believe what is being proposed is not that substitution groups are
necessarily used extensively within UBL schemas. What is being proposed is
that the schemas be designed so that the substitution group mechanism can be
utilized in extending the schemas in a clean and traceable way (that is the
extensions are explicit in the referenced schema in the instance document). If
substitution groups are used in UBL schemas they would only need to be used in
the code list schemas themselves to allow an unconstrained or enumeration
constrained set of values to be used in the code list.
What this requires of UBL primarily is the extensive use of global elements
(the ones that are substitutable), and, code list schema design and usage that
facilitates the extension mechanism.
Marty
In a message dated 7/19/2005 8:30:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
MCRAWFORD@lmi.org writes:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]