Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 96 Two Schema
** Reply to message from Chin Chee-Kai <email@example.com> on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:33:47 +0800 (SGT) > >>Although I understand the orthodoxy behind only wanting a single normative > >>version of any deliverable, I strongly support UBL providing the two flavours > >>of Schema. > > So I suppose we don't differ so much here. Is it right > to say that your point being: Provide the undocumented > version to help others, but ok with having only one > normative form (say, the documented one)? Here is where we differ. I want to challenge the idea that only one Schema should be normative, much as I understand the usual reasons for having single normative versions of documents. A big issue here is *which* should be the normative version. For some people, the answer will be obvious, but it will depend on what kind of problems, and scale of problems, you think about. The obvious answer isn't the same one for everyone. For large production systems, the Schema without annotations is what people will want. They will certainly want this unannotated Schema to be the normative Schema, since it is the one that will be used for validating documents, and you can't take a risk on using a non-normative Schema. It is less urgent that the informative annotated Schema be normative, since it is just something you use once to get the metadata into your relational database. For smaller systems, dealing with smaller volumes of smaller documents, the size of the Schemas will likely not be such an issue, and it might seem convenient to just use the annotated Schema. In that case, I can see why people would want the annotated Schemas to be normative. My suggestion that both be normative is because (a) there is no single solution that satisfies both of these groups, and (b) given that the only difference is the annotations, we should be able to produce two Schemas that behave identically for validation purposes. However, if people feel uncomfortable with this, I would suggest that the unannotated Schema be the normative one. I would argue that normative annotations are not as necessary as normative validation, and so high-end users shouldn't be cut out. Cheers, Tony. ==== Anthony B. Coates London Market Systems Limited 33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR http://www.londonmarketsystems.com/ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026 [MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/] [FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language), http://www.fpml.org/] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This Email may contain confidential information and/or copyright material and is intended for the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this Email by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Email is not a secure method of communication and London Market Systems Limited cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which London Market Systems Limited accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of London Market Systems Limited.