RE: [ubl] Changes to UBL NDR

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

<MJG>As far as including additional information in a message, I believe that would be a Content issue, rather than an NDR issue (aside from the fact that they would need to be elements, rather than attributes).</MJG>

<GKH>Ahhh ... I figured it was an NDR rule too ... or is it just the prohibition of xsd:any is an NDR issue?</GKH>

If the additional items become part of the model, then current NDRs govern their definitions and declarations. If the intent is to add items that do not exist in the model, then yes, it is an NDR issue.

Thanks,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 04 April 2006 1801
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Peter Borresen
Subject: RE: [ubl] Changes to UBL NDR

At 2006-04-04 16:30 -0400, Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:
>I believe there is still significant reluctance to allow xsd:any in the 
>UBL Standard. Issues were raised in New York that I'm not sure have 
>been addressed. Have you considered my suggestion of implementing it as 
>a Danish extension to UBL, rather than it becoming a part of the UBL 
>standard?

I've been swayed that judicious use of xsd:any can support extensibility.

>Hopefully all interested parties will be on the call tomorrow so we can 
>reach closure on this issue.

I am unable to call in, but in addition to the end of the document and the end of a line item, I'm of the opinion the end of a party would be a useful place for extensibility through xsd:any ... though I recognize doing anything is a slippery slope that might lead to trying to justify everything being this way.

With all the different kinds of parties, such a repeated structure is much like a repeated line, and having extensibility at the end of a party will allow extensions to live in a context with an implicit relationship should an application wish to derive such a relation.

>As far as including additional information in a message, I believe that 
>would be a Content issue, rather than an NDR issue (aside from the fact 
>that they would need to be elements, rather than attributes).

Ahhh ... I figured it was an NDR rule too ... or is it just the prohibition of xsd:any is an NDR issue?

. . . . . . Ken

>
>Thank You,
>Mike
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Peter Borresen [mailto:PLB@itst.dk]
>Sent: Tuesday, 04 April 2006 0847
>To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [ubl] Changes to UBL NDR
>
>Dear UBL TC
>
>Here is my proposal for updating the NDR so it fits with the Danish
>requirements:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>
>Chapter 5:
>
>Delete line 1583-1589   [This is allready described in line 1790-1798]
>Change line 1790-1798 to:
>
>"UBL restricts use of xsd:any to extensions. There can only be two 
>usages of xsd:any in a document; one in the end of a line element and 
>one as the last element of the document. The content of a xsd:any must 
>point to a well known schema, approved by the UBL TC, UBL subcommitee 
>or a UBL localization group."



--
Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16 World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php