Re: [ubl-dev] XML instances for UBL-1.0-SBS-0.5 - with fullurl's

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Folks 

Sincere apologies for sending these again but I noticed
an erroneous space at the start of the OrderCancellation
made it non-wellformed. Apologies not to have picked this
up before and here is a corrected set of sample UBL 1.0
(Small Business Subset 0.5) documents. This time they
are well-formed; and they are of course valid as UBL 1.0
XML documents and compliant with the SBS 0.5 subset.

Regards

Stephen Green


>>> "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 26/01/05 13:06:40 >>>
Folks

Yesterday I sent out XML files which were examples
and templates for the UBL Small Business Subset (UBL-1.0-SBS-0.5)

The files did not include the full url for the respective Schema
in the Schema location attribute. This was because it is not
necessarily to be assumed that UBL documents will be validated
against the OASIS persistent url document Schemas (due, say, to
the desire to guard against transient Internet/server problems).
Folk may prefer, if using W3C Schema validation, to validate
against local Schemas.

However, since some software may prefer to have the official urls
in the documents, I attach here another set of instances: both 
example instances filled with XML Spy-generated pseudo-data
and empty (and thus XSD-invalid) potential template instances
to aid in document creation in accordance with the UBL-1.0-SBS-0.5
subset. 

Note that for use of the template, reference to the UBL 1.0 Schemas
or some other respresentation of these (either embedded in software
or to hand as Schemas or other artefacts) will be required to determine
which elements, etc are repeatable.

In some cases the attributes are important (e.g. for currency codes)
but less so in other cases. Developers may take advantage of the
repetition/reuse of the attributes for each 'datatype' (such as
udt:IndicatorType rather than XSD-datatype that is) to reduce
the coding requirements. In none of the elements are the associated
attributes restricted beyond the restrictions in UBL 1.0 (eg for the
sdt:UBLAmountType) so every occurance of an udt:IndicatorType,
say, will always have associated with it the same set of attributes 
throughout this particular version of the subset. 

I'd appreciate any comments on whether or not the full url should
be included in instances by default, such as in templates used to
help create compliant documents. Would, on one hand, this
put excessive burden on the respective servers holding the Schemas?
Would there be associated problems when the servers etc are
unavailable?

All the best

Stephen Green

xml_with_urls.zip