RE: [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 29 June 2005

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

> 
> My matter concerned not adding data to UBL documents but 
> adding UBl documents to other documents (in my case an 
> XBRL-GL document *after* the sending and receiving of the UBL 
> message). In this case it seems appropriate to use a header 
> such as SBDH because it isn't a matter of adding another XMl 
> document to UBL, but for some the latter may be an acceptable 
> proceedure.
> 
> I suggested that there could be an xsd:type for XML and since 
> it was pointed out to me (thanks Chee-Kai!) that xsd:any is 
> just that. 

I am strongly opposed to the use of xsd:any in data centric standards.
If we follow this path, then lets just have two types cac:Any and
cac:Thing
> 
> So I'd suggest we add (or better still ATG2 add) a datatype 
> or set of datatypes like 'XMLType' (or 'StructuredDataType', say)
> 1) based on xsd:any or something like it (xinclude?) and/or another
> 2) based on xlink or something like it
> which would allow, completely at the modelers' discretion, the
> 1) inclusion and/or 2) referencing of structured (XML) data 
> in an element where it is appropriate to link, add or in some 
> other way associate XML from another schema in a UBL document.
> The metadata attributes (supplementary components) should 
> include the schema information of the linked, included or 
> associated XML.

ATG2 has no intent of ever adding such a construct.  There are no
provisions for it in ccts.  Remember, the UDT is a direct reflection of
CCTS CCT's.
> 
> 
> I'd also suggest we might try picking up on old liaisons with 
> XBRL to see how best practise guidelines might be developed 
> for the special case of linking UBL documents to XBRL 
> (especially, perhaps, GL) documents.

As soon as XBRL agrees to adopt ISO 15000-5.
 

Mark