[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Fw: [ubl-lcsc] ccts Annotation Structure (fwd)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote: >>Chin Chee-Kai wrote: >>> It seems that the design of namespace values by itself is already >>> not immutable over time with or without this discussion. >>> >>> The appending of version numbers to namespaces means namespace >>> values will change in time, which is not good and does not help >>> in migration phase from version changes. >> >>You seem to be implying that a namespace (for example, a namespace >>for <Order>) should not change from version to version. There is advantage in doing that, especially for UBL processor that handles incoming documents that the UBL processor cannot know a-priori what type and version the black-box document is so far. Thus, from a schema-oriented UBL processor's point of view, the UBL processor cannot determine which version of which schema to apply, except perhaps to try every single one on the incoming document, and hoping that one validation occurs. The UBL processor could, of course, "cheat" by doing out-of-schema pre-processing by peeping and reverse-engineering the namespace value just so to determine the type and version. But this is exactly, in my view, the undesirable situation that this rule forces UBL processors to do. >>While I >>am aware that this is one possible position regarding namespaces, >>that is not the view of namespaces that has been adopted. The view >>that has been adopted is that when something changes in a schema, >>its version changes, and so does its namespace and its namespace name. Yes, I'm also sure some debate and thoughts have been put in. I just don't know if the design has taken the above situation into consideration and how such a namespace value design addresses and helps that. >>Whether the namespace changes by virtue of changing the >>version-dependent part of the namespace name or by virtue of some >>arbitrary change in that name is not as important as the fact that >>it does change. In our case we have decided that it does change, and >>that change manifests itself as a mirror of the version. Yes, I know it's a bit late to discuss this, and if there is agreement on my suggestion, I'm likely to end up having much work to do to re-tune some of the tools. So I'm very happy to just smooth-sail along what has been decided. But I also do know now that the rule is not going to help very much in some situations, if it doesn't hurt. Hopefully, the collective decision done some time back has the better part of the wisdom. >>I am not >>sure I agree with you that this does not help in migration phase >>from one version to another. May I know which part you're not sure? Could you perhaps enlighten me how this namespace design applies to a scenario with millions of contextualized UBL instances (therefore, may types of UBL document schemas) floating around, some having versions 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, etc? Thanks. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6743-7875 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]