Re: [ubl-dev] Developer complaints about use of qualified and unqualifieddata type schemas

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[Kathleen.C.Morgan@irs.gov:]

| 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?

I've been hoping that someone more knowledgeable about the type
structure in UBL would answer this, but in the absence of a more
informed opinion, I'd venture to say that this sounds like a
comment on UBL's use of the ebXML Core Components technology.  If
so, this question should be addressed to the people in charge of
CCTS (ISO 15000-5).

Jon