[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UBL NDR SC Minutes PM 28 April 2003
We only have the following in 0p70 to work/decide on: ---------------------------------------------- Core Components Types Reusables 7 document types (Order, Invoice, etc). ---------------------------------------------- (*) I agree on a judicious mix of both approaches and not get stuck in a religious debate of local-is-better-so-everything-is local, or global-is-great-so-everything-is-global. Of course, what's "judicious" remains to be determined. Everything we find great now could only be applied at this point in time with any certainty. So assuming a mixed approach, some stuff will go local and the rest global, and we might need an on-going registry of some sort to set criteria as to what becomes admitted into the global types, and to maintain the evolving introduction/ aging/ retirement of those global types in the registry. Contextualised UBL schemas or instances could find use of new types in the registry since that won't affect the specifications set by UBL as they are contextualised. But as with any running of registry, who runs it, who decides what goes in and out, etc may be another long decision making process that I won't get into now. We can start to be specific about what types and what elements go local/global by looking through (*). Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6743-7875 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/ On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Eve L. Maler wrote: >>I should be clearer: I was assuming that all types would continue to be >>global, and was proposing that a carefully selected set of elements >>would be local instead of global. Does that still sound interesting? I >>don't think we've ever seriously considered anonymous types... >> >> Eve
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]