[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
> namespace versions are only indications of the specific vocabulary set I > am drawing from. That's the point I object to - this sort of vagueness may be OK for something like HTML (where browsers can just happily ignore the fact that, probably, no namespace is given or ignore the namespace, perhaps, even if it is given). In the case of legal business documents where millions may ride on the exact business semantics and content there could be serious abuse of not stating a namespace or, equally, of the namespace alone not pinning down the exact business semantics and content. This seems to me to be even more important than whether xsd:any can lead to abuse. Allowing any number of so-called compatible future minor versions to a schema without a change of namespace seems to me like one gigantic 'any' but in the root rather than a leaf. This is excacerbated if we don't restrict minor versions to those allowed by xsd:derivation through xsd:substitutionGroup. It means there is no way to ascertain that a later minor version schema is compatible (which has then become an arbitrary concept) with the version(s) folk are currently using. So in short, I believe that, provided a suitable method exists and is adequately supported and practical, if the minor versions can be forced to be backwards compatible they should be in UBL and if the namespace itself should include both the major AND the minor version information so that trading agreements can easily limit adoption to one precise major OR minor version (or exact set of versions). It can then all be ascertained PERPETUALLY in the instance itself. (Using the schemaLocation to do this would be open to change unless persistent urls are always used and the schema the url points is never changed, something that seems less than likely in one or the other case. Keeping the existing NDR rule for minor version namespaces seems more likely to be reliable from auditors' and lawyers points of view, a benefit of standardisation one would hope. Never changing schemas in specific persistent locations for both major and minor versions would support this.) All the best Steve
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]