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] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 9 November 2005


Thank you, Eduardo, for the input. Although a continuation of the dialog would be very welcome, I realize that you may not have the time, so I address this to the entire group:

> I see from the minutes that the TC has decided to go for redefine. I don't want to reopen the long discussion
> that we had on this in London (when Mike H. hosted our meeting), at which point we decided not to go that
> route mostly because of software concerns on the one hand and because redefine does not leave traces of
> it having been used in the document instances, only in the schemas, on the other.

I believe the issue about the instance was in relation to customization rather than our own minor versioning. At the time, redefine was being considered for customization and I had pointed out that it would require customizers to work within the UBL namespace and, therefore, there would be no way to determine what was a customization and was 'real' UBL. In the case of minor versioning it is all still 'real' UBL.

> a) the Customization Guide we wrote for v1.0 should be deleted for 2.0 and replaced with something completely
> new. Nothing in the old one applies now, so it would be a disservice to UBL users to try to re-use it.

I'm not quite sure why this is so. Can someone please point out which parts of it would no longer be applicable?

> The use of redefine completely eliminates the possibility of using a previous schema version to validate
> a new version document, as it provides none of the guarantees that XSD extensions and restrictions do.

First, in the examples given so far, we have limited our redefines to using extension:

  <xsd:redefine schemaLocation="UBL-CommonAggregateComponents-1.0.xsd">
    <xsd:complexType name="PartyType">
        <xsd:extension base="PartyType">
            <xsd:element ref="cbc:SomeNewElement" minOccurs="0"/>

Does this not give us the same guarantees? Also, the issue of what we mean by 'backwards compatibility' has reared its ugly head again. Just to clarify, we have agreed with Eduardo's example of 18 October:

"In other words, if all documents that validate against MySchema v1.0 also validate against MySchema v1.1, then MySchema v1.1 is said to be backwards compatible; but there is no expectation that any document that validates against MySchema v1.1 must also by necessity validate against MySchema v1.0"

Any assistance will be appreciated as we continue to evaluate the efficacy of redefine.

Thank You,

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