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

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Dave C. wrote - 

> The most difficult problem is with mapping (in UML) a global 
> element to the namespace in which it is declared.  The global element may be 
> declared in a different schema module, and possibly a different XML 
> namespace, than the complexType or simpleType on which it is based.  Some XML 
> Schemas (e.g. ACORD) use one very large schema file in one namespace; global 
> elements are quite straightforward here.  Other schemas (e.g. OAGIS 8.0 and 8.1) 
> use a very large number of schema modules to support reuse and abstraction, 
> which greatly complicates mapping global elements to schema modules and 
> namespaces.  UML has not yet settled on a rule for determining schema document 
> modularity and their namespace assignment.

But if we are consistent across schema modules on a unique one-to-one association of an element to a type, then this does not appear to be a problem.

Dave C. wrote - 

> My interest in NDR recommendations is more general than UBL.  
> I'm looking for a set of industry best practices.  I am still testing 
> alternative approaches to support global element mapping to UML and expect to find a 
> workable solution, but use of local elements (or restricted use of global 
> elements in some situations) simplifies the mapping and will reduce long-term 
> maintenance of UML models used for system integration.

So I read this to mean that local makes it easier, but global works.  Given the benefits of a single, semantically unambiguous universal business language, global still seems the way to go.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>