RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

<Quote>
Too late for XSD 1.1? Anyone in earshot on the W3C working group? :-)
</Quote>

Not in earshot, but in eyeshot (is that a word?) - see
http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema for status. Looks like they are still
accepting comments.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com

-----Original Message-----
From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk [mailto:stephen.green@systml.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:56 AM
To: David RR Webber (XML)
Cc: Chiusano Joseph; ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org;
ubl-sbsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types

re: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200605/msg00010.html

David

Thanks for this. I'll digest it carefully. It exemplifies well my view
that as much as possible implementation has to be left to the
implementers - except where state alignment requires more than that. So
we provided the specification in a neutral way (in SBS's case using an
XML instance rather than prose with a design to facilitate
transformation to machine readable formats as needed, or to prose if
necessary). Then we let folk generate Scehamtron, CAM or code such as
SAX and perl according to their preferences and needs. This seems the
thing to do unless we find the need (for better state synchronisation
and interoperability) to also provide the Schematron, CAM, etc (as with
the provision of the UBP for ebXML use - or as an example for the
equivalent in any other means).

Any thought of a CAM profile specifically for codelists and subsets?
These seem to be, regarding UBL at least, key areas of need and it might
be good to optimise CAM for those two areas with a profile.
The provided examples are great though. Refining these to fit the exact
use cases seems a great idea and perhaps even easier to follow for
implementers than a profile.

Ultimately I stiil have a small hope that XSD might be improved to cater
for 1. derivation of enumerations and 2. a way to say (and maybe
validate/verify) that a schema is a strict subset of another schema of
which it therefore uses the same namespace. Too late for XSD 1.1?
Anyone in earshot on the W3C working group? :-)

All the best

Steve