Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

Title: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups



I guess I expect that, with the design you are

articulating, the schema filename might not have

the minor version as a mandatory inclusion.

 

Also, if this same-namespace minor version

design were adopted, so that software receives

newer versions obliviously, to take advantage

of this feature you'd want to call a schema minor

'upgrade' by the same file name as the previous

schema. There might not be much point keeping

the 'space' name (namespace) but changing the

filename, would there?

 

The schemaLocation is vague because it can

be relative so you could make the schema

minor version distinction by giving the schemas

the same name but storing them in different

absolute locations (a sort of external polymorphism

without the audit trail). The relative location in the

instance could be such that a different schema is

pointed to depending on the location of the

instance or some kind of caching, etc (which

could change anyway as technology changes).

 

That's what I mean by vague.

 

In short I wouldn't be so happy about trading

under such an 'standard' architecture. Nor,

I think, would my auditors or tax authority!

(I'm not seeking to speak for these but just

anticipating likely objections later which could

hinder UBL adoption drastically.) I'd think there

would be the addition of substantial ambuiguity

by relying solely on the schemaLocation and

schema filename rather than the namespace.

 

In particular: The following doesn't look too good -

the trading agreement gives the schema filename

rather than the namespace (as normative). ??

That's what you get if you defer the minor

version name to the filename but leave it out

of the namespace.

 

All the best

 

Steve

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: CRAWFORD, Mark

To: stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk ; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:39 PM

Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

Since the schema location is versioned, not sure why you keep referring to it as vague.
Mark R. Crawford
Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee and OASIS Representative,
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Applied Technologies Group
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Co-Chair ISO TC154 Subcommittee for ISO 15000-5
--
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: Wed Jul 20 10:25:03 2005
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

Of course, the version attribute of the schema
is useless in this regard, as would be annotations
for CCTS which, too, are only held in the schema.
Neither can be referenced in the instance, only,
correct me if I'm wrong, the namespace and the
schemaLocation (which could be vague) can
appear in the instance to identify a schema or
an identifier within the schema in a well-known,
standard way. Creating a BIE so that something
else in instances does the same job, or worse, putting
that data into another document separate from the
instance, IMHO just moves the version data to somewhere
far less well-known, far less established.

Besides, I though it was intended that UBL supports
uses which are independant of ebXML, so forcing
use of CCTS-aware registries seems contrary to that
(if that is the alternative being offered to XSD derivation).

Likewise, adopting approaches as alternatives to
straightforward (though complex) uses of XSD seems
contrary to another NDR first principle of UBL.

Steve


        I doubt even more whether
        the version attribute could do the job. I doubt
        more still that it could be done with a UBL BIE
        for version.
        
        11. I hope nobody suggests that the version
        annotation in the schema be used !!  :-)