[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Ur type discussion
Bill: My understanding (and the only way this thing will work without an almost-wholesale abandonment of interoperability) is if we have a complete set of Ur-types - one for each UBL type. Each type that lives outside the UBL tree should be descended from an Ur-type; all UBL types are descended from Ur-types, but through the UBL library. Otherwise, entire documents will have to be processed as if they aren't at least partially (and generally this will be 90+%) descended from UBL types. Cheers, Arofan -----Original Message----- From: Burcham, Bill [mailto:Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:10 PM To: UBL NDR Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Ur type discussion Great to have you back Matt G.! A few questions about the Ur Type position paper http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/draft-gertner-urtypes V01.doc ** Ur-Types for All ABIE's or Just for "Message Types"? ** Is the proposal to have ur-types only for "message types" and not for all the ABIE's? The discussion around line 108 makes me think so. If that's the case then a user could specialize the Order (ur-type) so as to remove the OrderHeader, but the user would be unable to e.g. remove the ZIP code from an Address (ABIE) (assuming ZIP code was a Basic BIE Property of the core UBL Address). If I read that wrong, then is the proposal to have ur-types for all the ABIE's? In that case a user _would_ be able to remove the ZIP code from an Address. Such an Address would be "loosely" compatible in the terminology of the proposal right? ** Inheritance Relationship Between a Type and Its Ur-Type ** The proposal around line 78 (in section 2 "The 80/20 Design Principal") describes LCSC's decision to specify only the 20% of the structures (components) that will suffice 80% of the time. While the proposal doesn't couch it in similarly quantitative terms, I'll volunteer that the "specialization via XSD extension" described in section 1 "Type Derivation" satisfies a similar equation, to wit, that type derivation will solve 80% of the problem (with minimal effort). Since section 1 "Type Derivation" sets out an XSD type derivation regime as the dominant specialization mechanism (the one that we expect to suffice 80% of the time), I wonder what the inheritance relationship will be between a type and its ur-type. Intuitively I thought that a type would derive from its ur-type, but the proposal doesn't say so, and I can imagine certain problems with that. Regards, -Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC