Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Further namespace issues

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

I don't understand the implications of the suggested change well
enough to support this unless I hear from key members of NDR SC
that they are happy with it and I don't hear anyone objecting to
it.  (As I've made clear already, I don't consider complicating
the automatic schema generation to be an objection if we can get
to where we want to go with a reasonable amount of handwork.  What
I'm worried about here is whether the suggested change would
conflict with any of the thinking that went into NDR's current
position on scoping and re-use.)

Jon

   Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:42:17 -0700
   From: Dave Carlson <dcarlson@ontogenics.com>
   Cc: ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org, ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org

   I didn't comment on this earlier because I was not part of
   recent namespace discussion.  My preference is to make this
   change and to add an explicit namespace declaration to the
   reusable types schema, which is an easy manual edit to the
   schemas.

   The downside of this approach is that a UBL instance document
   will *always* need to have some of the elements prefixed with a
   namespace.  You can default either the main document schema
   (e.g. Order) or the reusable types schema, but not both.

   As I recall from discussions a year ago, there was concern that
   users would like to have a document instance without any tag
   prefixes.  I believe the current schemas would allow this,
   because the reusable types are included into each document
   schema (e.g. Order) and by implication into its namespace, then
   the entire document can use the default null namespace prefix.

   Is this just a short-term fix, and we will ultimatley have
   multiple namespaces in each document instance?

   -- Dave

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "Jon Bosak" <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>
   To: <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
   Cc: <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
   Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:22 PM
   Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Further namespace issues


   > (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