[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Updated UBL Library
Hello all, due to some inconsistencies with the namespaces, I modified the perl script, added something in the configuration files and generated new schemas. I sent this schemas to some colleagues a couple of hours before. That all will have recognizing this changes, I attached the modified package on to this mail. Kind regards, Gunther -----Original Message----- From: Burcham, Bill [mailto:Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2003 23:42 To: Lisa Seaburg (xmlgeek@gmi.net); 'G. Ken Holman'; Stuhec, Gunther; 'Jon Bosak '; 'Dave Carlson' Cc: 'bill.meadows@sun.com '; 'marion.royal@sun.com '; 'mavis.cournane@sun.com '; 'mcrawford@lmi.org '; 'tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au '; UBL LCSC Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Namespaces in UBL Schemas I believe both Ken's issues must be resolved before Monday's release. Also I believe that based on our decision from, what was it, Tuesday's call? To return to shorter tag names means that we also need to shorten the tag names on second-level elements. I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe that our decision somehow doesn't apply outside the "reusable" schema. Even though they aren't causing an insurmountable problem for Ken, those verbose tags constitute boogers on the front page of every 0p70 UBL document. Gunther: can you make the changes for Ken's two namespace issues PLUS the long-tags-in-document-types issue? Ken: if he does that, can will you have time to adapt to the tag fix? Dave: will you have time to re-gen the affected drawrings? Lisa: will we be able to make the deadline? Did I miss anybody Lisa? -----Original Message----- From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:33 PM To: Stuhec, Gunther; 'Jon Bosak '; Burcham, Bill Cc: 'lseaburg@aeon-llc.com '; 'bill.meadows@sun.com '; 'marion.royal@sun.com '; 'mavis.cournane@sun.com '; 'mcrawford@lmi.org '; 'tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au '; UBL LCSC Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Namespaces in UBL Schemas At 2003-01-23 21:43 +0100, Stuhec, Gunther wrote: >I thought, if the specific schema will be not a prefixed namespace, >then >the attributes "targetNamespace" and "xmlns" are not really necessary. Downloading 22-01-03b.zip from: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lcsc/200301/msg00114.html and my sample instances from: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-lcsc/200301/msg00125.html The schemas as written do not validate the instances: ===8<--- Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b>msv UBL_Library_0p70_Order.xsd 220order1.xml start parsing a grammar. validating 220order1.xml Error at line:2, column:54 of file:///Z:/data/docs/ubl/lcsc/20030122b/220order1.xml Probably namespace URI of tag "Order" is wrong (correct one is "") the document is NOT valid. Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b> ===8<--- When I add the following two attributes to the xsd:schema document element ... targetNamespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1.0:0.70" xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1.0:0.70" ... the instances validate: ===8<--- Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b>msv UBL_Library_0p70_Order-mod.xsd 220order1.xml No validation errors. Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b>msv UBL_Library_0p70_Order-mod.xsd 220order2.xml No validation errors. Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b> ===8<--- I am ambivalent about the xmlns:bie="" attribute ... it doesn't affect me, it just looks out of place. Perhaps I've created the instances differently than what members expect ... I'm coming in late so I may have incorrect assumptions. The first lines of the 220order1.xml instance are: ===8<--- Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b>head 220order1.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <Order xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1.0:0.70"> <OrderID>4500004875</OrderID> <OrderIssueDate>2001-12-17</OrderIssueDate> <OrderTransactionCurrencyCode>USD</OrderTransactionCurrencyCode> <OrderGrossWeightMeasure unitCode="kg">50</OrderGrossWeightMeasure> <OrderGrossVolumeMeasure unitCode="m3">7</OrderGrossVolumeMeasure> <BuyerParty> <ID>R300</ID> <PartyName> Z:\data\docs\ubl\lcsc\20030122b> ===8<--- >But if this will be better for processing application, I can implement >these two attributes, now. *I'm* quite confident it is necessary, but I'm concerned that no-one else has confirmed or challenged my position. Any other opinions? Has anyone else yet created instances against 22-01-03b? ................... 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/m/ 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/m/bc
Attachment:
UBL_Library_0p70_23-01-03.zip
Description: Binary data
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC