RE: [ubl-ndrsc] import versus include schema

["Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>]

Is the issue that the document should clearly draw a distinction between
include vs. import?  

BTW -- Mark: SSM7 is just plain wrong (thanks for pointing me to it
Chee-Kai):

A UBL root schema in one UBL namespace that is dependant upon type
definitions or element declarations defined in another namespace MUST NOT
import Schema Modules from that namespace.

That "import" should say "include".  Did we fix that already?


-----Original Message-----
From: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@softml.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:18 AM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: UBL NDR
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] import versus include schema


Bill, 

Thanks.  SSM6, SSM7  have no inkling on the word "include"
at all.  I don't think it is fair to expect a read who
looks at the document first time round to know that 
SSM6 and SSM7 were "clearly" trying to forbid certain configurations between
uses of import and include.



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Burcham, Bill wrote:

>>To Chee-Kai's issue #16 from today's discussion.  To the first note:
>>
>><!--  Note: it is not non-compliant with XML Schema spec to import the 
>>same schema more than once, provided the semantic treatment result in 
>>exactly the same as if the schema had been loaded the first time.  But 
>>we should rule this more lenient (but not incorrect) spec out in UBL. 
>>-->
>>
>>It's true that the UBL rule is more restrictive than the XSD one.  It 
>>is supposed to be.  The reason is this: UBL is comprised of 
>>components.  Each component is directly usable (by a user external to 
>>UBL) by import of a root schema for that component.  The component 
>>(root schema) itself includes any necessary (internal) schemas -- and 
>>also imports other root schemas it requires.  This frees the end-user 
>>from having to know the internal structure and dependencies of the 
>>component.
>>
>>If two such root schemas (namespaces) are interdependent then they are 
>>not really usable in isolation.  Therefore they essentially comprise 
>>one component.  So if two components are interdependent UBL says they 
>>should be combined into a single component.  This is simply for design 
>>cleanliness, and clarity.
>>
>>To the second point:
>>
>><!--  Note 2: The two-level import restriction has turned out to be 
>>too restrictive for implementation.  It needs to be relaxed.  An 
>>example wording is proposed above.  -->
>>
>>We agreed on the call today to ask Chee-Kai for specifics here.  I 
>>don't know what the real issue is here.
>>
>>-Bill
>>