Re: [ubl] My original comments on aligning with ATG2 CCT schemas

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

On 11/17/2004 06:50 PM, Tim McGrath wrote:
> Following the meetings this week I have been asked to resend  my 
> original comments on the alignment of ATG2 CCT schemas and UBL 1.0 ones.
> 
> The message can be found at: 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200409/msg00000.html
> 
> However, some of this is now history as the ATG2 group have been 
> revising their draft schemas.  for exmaple, i have been informed that 
> some of these comments (such as the naming of attributes) are resolved.
> 
> My personal opinion is that we should aim to have one definitive set of 
> schemas (owned by ATG2) for UBL 2.0. The caveat on this is that we have 
> to support backward compatibility with UBL 1.0 documents. So in the 

Without committing myself one way or another regarding the wisdom of
doing things one way or another: where is this requirement coming from?
I thought there was agreement that the difference between major and minor
versions was that major versions were allowed to introduce incompatibilities
as regards previous versions; in fact, the definition I've always
carried in my mind between a minor version and a major version is that
a major version is major by virtue of introducing at least one incompatible
feature, not by virtue of passing some kind of lithmus test bound to an
arbitrary number of new or modified features.


> interim we need to work towards convergence both with the ATG2 (and OAG) 
> schemas as they develop.