Re: [ubl-dev] A few general questions regarding UBL and XSD

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

Hi Rasmus,

Sorry for the delay.  Responses inline from Eduardo (CM Editor).
I will follow up on #3 a bit more.

Rasmus Knippel wrote:

>Hi Dev's
>
>I have previously tried to post the following question - but with no replies
>:-(
>
>Hope someone out there can help me..'
>
>----
>A few general questions regarding UBL and XSD.
>
>1.	In the UBL guideline document is an example (in section 3.1.2
>        Restrictions) on how to eliminate optional elements: 
>	"you can eliminate an optional element (that is, change its
>        cardinality from 0..3 to 0..0)".
>	I just wan't to make shure this doesn't mean that you have to
>        write maxoccures="0" but just omit writing the element in your 
>	restriction.
>
Either way would work, but omission is simplest.

>
>2.	The UBL guideline document prmarily talks about modeling the
>        types in UBL.  I have some doubt on what is allowed on element
>	level - and still be UBL-Compatible.   
>	a. Is it aloved to create new elements if these are based on
>        UBL types (under a new namespace ofcourse) 
>
Yes.

>	b. Is it allowed to create elements based on my own types?
>
No.

>
>3.	Is it allowed to restrict-extend? Ex.: I want to remove an
>        optional element and extend the schema with another UBL element.
>	This requires two steps in xml-schema - is there any
>	recommendations on how to du this? 
>	The way I do it now is by restricting to an abstract type
>        (like a temp. value) and then extending this to the desired result.
>	 Is this UBL-Compliant?
>
I believe it is...

>
>4.	There are some guidelines on how to model the file structure of UBL.
>
>	I would like to "atomize" the schemas so that there is one element
>        pr. file. Is this Compliant?  It is has no infuence on the structure
>	of the toplevel schemas..
>
This should not influence customization. I don't think it should be an 
issue

-A