[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation
One more comment that I meant to put in my last message. If someone is building a new customization based on the UBL library, and they want to specify a new *role* for an existing type without changing the type definition, then a local element declaration should be used. For example, within AcmeOrder specialization: <xs:element name="DropShipAddress" type="cat:AddressType" /> This declares a new element within Order and reuses an existing type, but not an existing element. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Carlson" <dcarlson@ontogenics.com> To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Cc: "VANDAMME Frank" <frank.vandamme@swift.com>; "Garret Minakawa" <garret.minakawa@oracle.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:15 AM 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]