OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation


Hi Eve,

I don't mean to suggest that there are *no* global elements.  But an approach I
find useful (and have used for the past 2 years when generating XSD from UML)
is to declare a global element for complexType, if that complexType has
complexContent (i.e. an ABIE).

The global element declaration is *always* in the same schema and same target
namespace as its complexType.  This leads to a very predictable pattern and
easily automatable mapping to/from UML (or other modeling environments,
including spreadsheets).  The global element name should always be derived from
the type name, e.g. "BuyerParty" is the global element for a complexType
"BuyerPartyType".  Any other element names, especially those based on
simpleTypes, are local elements declarations.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>

>
> But if UBL has only reusable types, and not reusable elements, then
> anyone building a new document out of UBL types will have to bind their
> own elements (in their own "foreign" namespace) to types in UBL's
> namespace, which is the skew I referred to earlier.  (Or I suppose they
> could trivially derive a native type from a UBL type every time they
> want to use something from UBL, but that doesn't seem so practical
> either.)  Is this a problem in practice for UML/OO processing?  (I think
> it may be a problem for those creating and trying to understand
> instances, and also for those trying to reuse any non-type-aware -- say,
> XSLT/XPath V1.0 -- software to process the new documents.)
>





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]