OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups


That's surprising, thanks for the
correction. However I'd be hard
pressed to find a better reason
for global. Global seems to me
to tie in very much with type
oriented schemas and that in turn
ties in with polymorhism (which
requires the global elements as well
as the global types). In other words
it seems to me that the industry,
where advocating global schemas
(increasingly so, it seems) does
seem to do so with features such
as inheritance / polymorphic
treatment of types strongly in mind,
along with the growing tool and
other standard support (XSLT 2, etc).
I think Eduardo's/Arofan's paper
on the subject went along these lines.

All the best


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
To: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>;
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:03 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

> If UBL were to drop the XSD derivation
> (it entailing essentially the use of
> substitution groups), and yet the global design were to
> prevail in ATG2, where would that leave UBL? There would be a
> global design to follow without the essential reason and
> benefits wouldn't there? Both designs would then surely have
> lost their respective advantages wouldn't they?

Sorry Stephen - we NEVER put the advantages of XSD derivation on the
table when discussing global/local.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]