[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Substitution Groups for Derivation
Hi Ken Comments inline below - Quoting "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>: > I'm going to chime in briefly to get a better understand of needs ... > but I don't have a comment on substitution groups, but on > extensibility. This impacts the work I'm trying to do with > extensibility in UBL. > > At 2006-05-19 16:55 +0800, Chin Chee-Kai wrote: >> On schema extensibility, end-users defer extensions to developers >> and implementors, who then seek compatible ways to implement those >> business extensions. > > Fine ... > >> Schema has a couple of ways to allow that. > > But with the recent efforts of Steve and Joe to demonstrate on this > list any extensibility using W3C Schema features, I think it is clear > the features are not sufficient to the task. An important point is that the previous discussion was about datatypes - that is both CCTS 'qualified and unqualified datatypes' and their underlying W3C XML Schema datatypes. These were found to be difficult to customise using W3C Schema redefine and substitution group techniques and possibly any W3C Schema form of derivation. Schematron and other second layer methods seem to be preferable for such datatypes. This discussion didn't really consider the other types in UBL, complex types called Business Information Entities(BIEs). For those not familiar with the Core Components technical Specification (CCTS, ISO 15000-5) these in turn use by reference the qualified and unqualified CCTS datatypes. It still remains that UBL was primarily designed to allow such BIEs to be extended and restricted using the W3C XML Schema derivation methodology of substitution groups (although there was a rule preventing the use of such actually in the read-only schemas, which helps implementers use them for customisation). It may still be (the last I heard the TC had decided to keep it open) that UBL minor versions will use this technique to ensure backwards compatibility from previous versions. I created several prototypes of UBL 2 schemas to prove the workability of this. One of my action items for next week's plenary is to test any schemas for UBL 2 second public review which we might produce to see that this workability is intact, likewise that customisation will work this way too. This is a whole different thing to datatype derivation. It goes back to work done by a UBL working group last year after which it was agreed that the next set of UBL schemas should use all global elements and types (Garden of Eden) to at least allow this and that this would mean the next release being a major one, hence UBL 2. The decision of whether to use susbtitution groups or redefine for minor versioning was then deferred, as was the decision as to whether to actually promote their use for customisation. UBL TC would just ensure the options were open for either by using the GoE design. The customisation decision is awaiting discussion after the UBL 2 second public review schemas have been produced (imminent now hopefully). It might be a good time to discuss this in view of the above - if folks aren't too worn out from the datatypes discussion (and with catching up with those postings) :-) > > If developers and implementers implemented the business extensions > solely within the new extension point being provided in the next > draft UBL 2 then there (1) won't be a need to shoehorn insufficient > validation facilities and (2) implementations will be true to the > compatibility measurement with UBL 2 because all instances will > continue to validate according to the normative UBL 2 schemas > regardless of the embedded extensions. I agree this is plausible but the option to use substitution groups is not being precluded and in my mind at least, for BIEs, remains a key feature of the planned UBL version 2. > > I feel this compatibility test will promote interoperability and I > believe these benefits will outweigh possible implementation concerns. > > . . . . . . Ken > This is a good idea I think. I still feel it is best practise to allow both options. A key factor is that this will be true too if substitution groups are used properly (and simply too). The whole thread for this is rather fragmented but can be found in the following with relevant items marked '[ver]' in the subject http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200504/threads.html see also http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200502/msg00037.html Do folk have the stomach for another lengthy discussion ? :-) All the best Steve All the best Steve > -- > Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16 > Also for XSL-FO/XSLT training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04 > Also for XML/XSLT/XSL-FO/UBL training: Varo,Denmark 06-09-25/10-06 > World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training. > G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com > Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ > Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) > Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc > Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing > the UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the > archives, you must subscribe before posting. > > [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ > Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/ > Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ > List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php > Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/ > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]