RE: [ubl] Discussion of RELAX-NG/W3C Schema normativeness in SBSC work

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

 Ken wrote:

> W3C Schema isn't powerful enough to express what we would 
> like to express.

Has there been a use case and requirements discussion about this?  If
so, could you point me to the relevant documents?

> What is the breadth of scope of the NDR?  I understood them 
> to be only for the models of the instances used for 
> transactions.  The work we are doing is not expressing 
> constraints on a UBL transaction document, but on support files.

Not sure I agree with your interpretation.  For example, I would expect
that any normative schema, regardless of their intended purpose, must
conform to those NDR rules that are applicable.  It would seem to me
that if the support files are necessary for the transactions, then they
must be normative and  the NDR  applies.
> 
> Should we be handcuffed by W3C Schema everywhere?

There are very good reasons for our longstanding decision on the use of
XSD.  I have no problems with also using relaxng or other schema
languages, but only as alternative expressions.  If any aspect of UBL
requires the use of other than XSD, then we will loose a number of
potential implementers - including many U.S. Government Agencies as well
as create an insurmountable roadblock with UN/CEFACT.

Mark