[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Schema Modularity and Imports/Includes
Mark, others, We identified this conflict (or a related one) in San Francisco in November and didn't resolve it. I think Mark posed the question clearly. I seem to recall that we thought that the answer was probably "no", but we didn't give it a great deal of consideration. This is just a little history--not a recommendation of what we should do. I'd have to think about it a bit more to arrive at a recommendation. One clarifying question though. What's the distinction between "external control schema" and "control schema"? I suspect there is none, but if there is, we should be clear about what it is. The term "external control schema" doesn't occur in the NDR document. Regards, Jim Wilson -----Original Message----- From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:44 AM To: UBL Design Rules (E-mail) Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Schema Modularity and Imports/Includes Folks, On today's CEFACT ATG Call, we discussed the UBL modularity approach. A question came up regarding the ability of internal schema modules to import external schema modules/control schemas. Figure 3-1 does not reflect any imports by internal schema modules. Figure 3-3 implies that the 4 fixed external schema modules (CAT, CBT, RT, DT) are imported by the internal schema modules rather than the control schema. The text on or about line 1143 states "Any UBL schema module, be it a control schema or an internal module may import other control schemas from other namespaces". These seem to be in conflict with each other. My question is - Do we need/want the internal schema modules to have the ability to import external control schema/schema modules? Mark
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]