[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] XML instances for UBL-1.0-SBS-0.5 - with fullurl's
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]