[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] How UBL could postpone a decision about whether or not to implement...
Jon,
Some comments and questions in line:
In a message dated 3/15/2004 11:51:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, jon.bosak@sun.com writes:
- There are doubts in the XML expert community about the wisdom What are the specific questions raised about this and to what do they pertain?
- We suspect that there may be parsers in current use that don't I understand this is being checked today by LMI.
- Some people in UBL are firmly of the opinion that substitution It would help if we all could see the issues that are being raised. So far none have been in the emails on this subject these several weeks. What may be unsuitable as an unregulated practice might be just fine if used according to as set of UBL rules. There are many features of XMLSchema and other languages for that matter that require adherence to conventions not directly represented in the expression language -- for instance core component types and naming rules.
- Some other people in UBL are not quite so firm in opposition The specific proposals on the table are anything but ad hoc. All extensions must be made using declared namespaces and are explicitly testable in parsers. These proposals were first introduced to ubl in April of 2003.
- The NDRSC long ago considered the use of substitution groups Would like to see the rationale and whether usage in codelists only would be inconsistent with it.
- We have not been able to confirm that the mechanism proposed I would point out here that the normative design for the other language mappings should be the requirements and the data model (CLSC Specification sections 2 & 3). The XMLSchema representation of code lists tries to reflect this abstract model with fidelity (section 4). The other mappings should as well. Therefore, I suggest that the question to ask is can ASN.1 (ITU) and RNG (ISO), etc... represent the requirements of the model, as does the XMLSchema mapping. If the answer is yes, as I suspect, then lossless interconversion is possible.
- Stephen Green has proposed a plan for implementing code lists I would like to see the code list model developed with the clsc implemented as recommended independent of whether ubl 1.0 chooses to exploit the extensibility model that relies on substitution groups. If this is done, the code list schemas will at least be complete as to the necessary requirements and can start being used in practice. ubl can then debate how best to use these capabilities in the rest of the schemas.
As illustrated in the example I provided to Lisa Seaburg this morning shows, virtually no change in the SDT schemas and higher aggregations are required to use code list schema without the extensibility feature in its complete and current form. Use of substitution groups in the SDT is all that is required to add the additional capabilities for extension and restriction.
Hope this helps,
Marty
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]