[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
If this is dictated by rfc 3121, not by the TC, why do we need an NDR
for it? It seems at the moment we have an NDR that may conflict with
this rfc unless
these ubl ndr name components can be mapped to these rfc 3121 name
components:
'ubl' -> 'specification-id'
'schema' -> 'type'
'name' -> 'subtype'
'major:minor' -> 'document-id'
Even so, if Eduardo is correct about the need to make the document-id
1.0 rather than 1:0 (which makes a lot of sense) then the rule is still
incorrect because of the ":" between major and minor. Is there really a
need for an NDR for the entire URN? The only part of such a rule that
would be needed is something to state which values UBL will use for
which components of the rfc 3121 urn that are *not* dictated by the rfc
(specification-id, type, subtype, documen-id). Repeating the other
parts of the urn in the ndrs seems to me to be redundant and a source
for problems .
-A
:{type}{:subtype}?:{document-id}
Also
-A
Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
> On 07/19/2004 01:19 PM, MCRAWFORD@lmi.org wrote:
>
>> The committee drafts are just that- drafts. Specification is reserved
>> for those that complete the oasis process.
>
>
> If we are talking about *the* document that will be presented for OASIS
> membership approval as an OASIS Standard, then it has to follow the
> naming rules contained in RFC 3121
> (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3121)
>
> I thought we were talking about *the* document. I've also just gone and
> re-read the RFC, which I should have done to begin with...
>
> The URN should be:
>
> urn:oasis:names:specification:<specification-id>:schema:xsd:1.0
>
> Note that <specification-id> should be provided by OASIS. I certainly
> believe that "ubl" is appropriate, but we should make sure that Karl
> Best is aware of this and approves of it as specification-id; I may
> be rehashing things...
>
> Note that OASIS (Karl) should assign type and subtype, but I believe
> using schema:xsd should not be a problem.
>
> Note that it should say "1.0", not "1:0", I believe (although
> the RFC could be read as saying that <document-id> [which is what
> this would be] should be provided by OASIS too.)
>
> Sorry if this introduces even more confusion.
>
> If we are not talking about *the* document then the urgency of
> getting it right decreases, even though it would indeed be nice
> getting it right.
>
>
>> Mark R. Crawford
>> Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
>> W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
>> Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
>> Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
>> Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
>> --
>> LMI Government Consulting
>> 2000 Corporate Ridge
>> McLean, VA 22102-7805
>> 703.917.7177 Phone
>> 703.655.4810 Wireless
>> The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater
>> www.lmi.org
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Green <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>
>> To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Sent: Mon Jul 19 16:04:09 2004
>> Subject: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
>>
>> Eduardo
>>
>> Thanks for these comments. I thought, looking at the rule, that it
>> should be
>> changed to xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:Order:1:0"
>> or is that what it should be prior to standards approval?
>>
>> Also, should we be going back to prefixing with draft numbers until
>> we are
>> sure
>> we have a bug-free set of Schemas?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eduardo Gutentag" <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>
>> To: "Grimley Michael J NPRI" <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>
>> Cc: <Anne.Hendry@Sun.COM>; <mcrawford@lmi.org>; <Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM>;
>> <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>
>> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
>>
>>
>> > Right,
>> >
>> > changing
>> >
>> > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1:0"
>> > to
>> > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:ubl:Order:1:0"
>> >
>> > (and others accordingly) should be enough. Unless what is being
>> changed is
>> > the TC spec previous to Standards approval. If that is the case
>> then we
>> would
>> > have to re-think this answer...
>> >
>> > On 07/16/2004 06:27 AM, Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:
>> > > Anne,
>> > >
>> > > To answer Question 1, see Rule NMS5:
>> > >
>> > > [NMS5] The namespace names for UBL Schemas holding OASIS
>> Standard
>> status MUST be of the form:
>> > >
>> > >
>> urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:<name>:<major>:<minor>
>> > >
>> > > This pretty much answers Question 2 as well, because it is
>> version 1.0
>> of the OASIS spec. (The other was 1.0 of the TC draft.)
>> > >
>> > > Thank You,
>> > > MikeG
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Anne Hendry [mailto:anne.hendry@sun.com]
>> > > Sent: Thursday, 15 July 2004 21 24
>> > > To: mcrawford@lmi.org; Eduardo.Gutentag;
>> GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil;
>> jon.bosak@sun.com
>> > > Cc: stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk
>> > > Subject: what to do about namespaces in schemas
>> > >
>> > > Since we are changing the schemas we are wondering how to handle
>> the
>> updating of the namespace in a couple of ways. Where we have, for
>> example,
>> > >
>> > > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1:0"
>> > > xmlns:ccts="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CoreComponentParameters:1:0"
>> > > xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonBasicComponents:1:0"
>> > >
>> xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonAggregateComponents:1:0"
>> > >
>> > >
>> xmlns:res="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:codelist:AcknowledgementResponseCode:1:0"
>>
>> > > xmlns:udt="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:UnspecializedDatatypes:1:0"
>> > > xmlns:sdt="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:SpecializedDatatypes:1:0"
>> > > xmlns:cur="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:codelist:CurrencyCode:1:0"
>> > >
>> > > 1. Do we need to change the 'tc' part now that it's becoming an
>> OASIS
>> spec, 2. Do we also need to change the 1:0 part since we these
>> schemas will
>> be different than the earlier 1:0 schemas we released? We could have
>> it as
>> 1.0-draft-1, or 1.0.1 or something like that. Or are we intending that
>> everyone that receives this final release will replace any previous one
>> marked '1.0'. This could cause a lot of confusiion, though, as I'm
>> not sure
>> how one would identify the 'correct' 1.0 schemas once they were
>> installed
>> and/or circulated.
>> > >
>> > > This needs to be thought out now because we're changing the ccp
>> schema
>> now and this may well never be changed again without any other reason.
>> > >
>> > > Stephen/Anne
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
>> eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
>> > Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616
>> x31442
>> > Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
>> >
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>> of the OASIS TC), go to
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>> of the OASIS TC), go to
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]