[ubl-lcsc] Further namespace issues

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

(Copying to ndrsc to make sure everyone sees this... The former
subject line was something like "Re: [ubl-lcsc] RE: [ubl-ndrsc]
Updated UBL Library --> shorter Tagnames wihtin Business
Documents")

Ken's second form is clearly prettier for the stylesheet writer.

Key questions for NDR and interested observers:

1. Does this disturb NDR's current plan of record for global
   naming?

2. Can the change be accomplished simply and easily by hand?
   (Gunther is on his way back to Walldorf now and has to be
   considered unavailable for the time remaining to finalize the
   schemas.)

Jon

==================================================================

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:05:39 -0500
From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Updated UBL Library --> shorter
 Tagnames wihtin B	usiness Document	s
To: UBL LCSC <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>

At 2003-01-24 14:40 -0600, Burcham, Bill wrote:
>I do see a couple further issues with namespaces though.

Well spotted, Bill!

>Don't know how
>critical these are -- I'd love to hear some NDRSC opinion here.
>
>1. The "Reusable" schema defines no target namespace at all, whereas our
>specification says it should define a namespace of the form
>"urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonAggregateTypes:[TBD version info]"
>2. As a result, higher-level namespaces that rely on "Reusable" have no way
>of declaring that reliance.  For instance, I would expect to see a namespace
>prefix declaration in the "Order" namespace referring to "Reusable" -- also
>an "import" element.
>3. Our specification says that the "CoreComponentTypes.xsd" schema should
>define a namespace of the form "urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonLeafTypes:[TBD
>version info]" but instead it defines
>"urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CoreComponentTypes:1.0:0.70".
>...
>Just intuitively (best I can do right now) let's think about a (reusable)
>component like an Address (woo hoo -- my favorite!).  If I have an address
>deep inside an Order document, won't the Address tags be in the Order
>namespace?  And if I have an Address deep inside an Invoice, won't the
>Address tags be in the Invoice namespace?  That breaks reuse.

Yes, between documents it does.  In my stylesheets I was only trying to 
address reuse within the one given stylesheet but you are right (by 
extension) that in my current design the reusable bits are localized to 
each document type.  I could not have a single XSLT template for Address 
shared across all of the stylesheets.

>I need to be able to say something like:
>
><xsl:template match="ubl:Address">...do something smart...</...>
>
>And have that work on Orders and Invoices right?

That is certainly doable, and would make stylesheet *fragments* shareable 
across all document types.

The instance would read either as follows:

   <Order xmns="..Order.." xmlns:ubl="..CommonLeafTypes..">
     ...
     <ubl:BuyerParty>
       ...
       <ubl:PartyName>
         ...
       <ubl:Address>
         ...

or more compactly as:

   <po:Order xmns:po="..Order.." xmlns="..CommonLeafTypes..">
     ...
     <BuyerParty>
       ...
       <PartyName>
         ...
       <Address>
         ...

by using the default namespace for the reusable constructs.

I can accommodate this change in my stylesheets very easily, Bill, if it is 
accepted.

...................... Ken

--
Upcoming hands-on in-depth   Europe:         February 17-21, 2003
XSLT/XPath and/or XSL-FO     North America:      June 16-20, 2003

G. Ken Holman                mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.         http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0   +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6                      Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5                              Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X  Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-10-1              Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc