FW: [ubl-dev] Details on the Methodology

[Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>]

Greetings,

This was discussed when we were going through every feature of XML Schema and making a decision on whether or not to allow *the LCSC* to take advantage of it. We were reminded on several occasions (by Mark and Jon) that our vote was *only* on whether to allow the LCSC to use them, and in many cases the decision was based solely on whether they were currently using the construct or not.

Because of this, I think we should make clear that the rules in the NDR are only normative for the LCSC (as was the original intent when the votes were taken).

Maybe we should revisit each rule and decide which ones should (must?) also apply to customizers. Also, I believe there was a decision made that any rules targeted solely to customizers would be contained in the Context Methodology deliverable.

Thank You,
Mike Grimley

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anne Hendry said (on ubl-dev):

Regarding the use (or not) of xsd:choice, I do recall several discussions
on this, but don't recall the details of the final decision.   There is the
intention, for the final UBL release, to flesh out the rules checklist with additional information on each rule.  I can bring this question and your other comment (on splitting the document) to the attention of the NDR team.  Their next meeting is this coming Wednesday.  

>     I really cannot understand why UBL forbids xsd:choice. Aside from
>     the fact that even DTDs permit choices, there are many
>     applications in which a content model must reflect a choice. For
>     example, suppose a government form allows the user to include
>     either a TIN or SSN for identification purposes, or another
>     application allows one of 4 parameters for a search. How can we
>     possibly create UBL-compliant XSDs that meet our business needs
>     with such a restriction on content models? We would be forced to
>     create redundant schema that differ only in such choices, an
>     obvious maintenance headache.
>