Re: [ubl] How UBL could postpone a decision about whether or not to implement...

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[Burnsmarty@aol.com:]

| 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.

I don't know what you mean by "the rest of the schemas."  We are
not considering the use of substitution groups outside of code
lists.

Are you suggesting a solution in which 1.0 code lists would be
published without using substitution groups in a way that would
allow this approach to be adopted later?  If so, I don't
understand how your proposal differs from Stephen's.

| 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.

I can't see this example.  Perhaps you did not post it to the
list.

Could you please state your proposal in terms of the changes that
would need to be made to the latest set of schemas?

Jon