RE: [ubl] Minor Versioning Example (was [ubl] Minutes of Atlanti cUBL TC c all2 November 2005)

[Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>]

> How do other tools and validators cope with it?
> Does it have the same tool support to visualise an 'audit trail' (such as to show where a complexType is derived from another with a name change)?

I will try it out with other tools as soon as I can (which may not be for a while).
Hopefully some of our other members can give it a try...


> Does it force the use of the same namespace for minor versions?

Yes; that is why it can't be used by customizers.



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] 
Sent: Friday, 04 November 2005 1150
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minor Versioning Example (was [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC c all2 November 2005)

Yes, a good example

But it does use redefine, which I gather has even less consistent tool support than substitution groups. 

XML Spy 2006 handles it OK by the looks of things.

How do other tools and validators cope with it?

Does it force the use of the same namespace for minor versions?

Does it have the same tool support to visualise an 'audit trail' (such as to show where a complexType is derived from another with a name change)?




>>> Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil> 04/11/05 
>>> 16:28:42 >>>

Here is a starting place for our discussion.

Attached you will find an example of minor versioning based on the 1.0 release.

    - I have created v1.1 of CAC, CBC and Joinery Order schemas.

    - I have validated a 1.0 order instance to the 1.1 schema and have created a 1.1 order instance utilizing the new element. (See first //Party/SomeNewElement.)

Let's work from here to more complicated examples.

Comments?