Developer complaints about use of qualified and unqualified data type schemas

[Morgan Kathleen C <Kathleen.C.Morgan@irs.gov>]

I hope this is a simple question -
 
My organization has adopted much of the UBL NDR rules - including the
designation of both qualified and unqualified data types.   This is how we
have implemented the concept - we have dates - a beginning effective date
and an ending effective date.  We made a qualified data type for "Effective
Date" which use xsd:DateType.  Our basic component "BeginEffectiveDateType"
extends the qdt:EffectiveDate
 
The problem is that we are in the process of implementing SOA.  Developers
are taking our messages schemas and importing them into their toolsets, they
are complaining to us that the use of the data type schemas are making their
jobs more difficult.  Basically what they are reporting is that when base
types are extended in other type definitions, the java toolsets are
generating classes for the base types and the extended types -- so
essentially they are getting extra classes that they don't need.  The
question we are getting on a more regular basis is "Why can't your common
basic components directly use the xsd:types instead of using your qualified
data types that provide no value except to create extra documentation."
 
Besides the providing some extra value within the documentation - is there a
reason the NDR uses this type of nested construct?  Are we implmenting the
concept incorrectly?
 
 
Kathleen C. Morgan
PRIME - IRS EDMO
(301) 731-6768
kathleen.c.morgan@irs.gov / kmorgan24@csc.com