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] Draft 2.0 Schemas with Currency Codes edited to unions

At 2005-12-07 10:31 -0500, Burnsmarty@aol.com wrote:
>This is not a problem. We verified that the use of union of token 
>and code list would not permit automatic validation in parser. 
>However, you can see that the parser does understand the code set 
>and note that in XMLSpy you can pick from the list of codes.
>By precluding the use of substitution groups in the UBL schemas, it 
>is not possible to constrain the acceptable values in the schemas. 
>However, use of union allows others to restrict from this definition 
>which was not possible otherwise.
>This is, therefore, what I think is the best compromise given other 
>NDR decisions.

Does this mean there is no role for the code list value validation 
methodology I'm working on?

If the schemas do not parse against an enumerated list, this approach 
you've implemented appears to require the schemas be modified by 
restriction in order to do the value validation.  My understanding 
was that the schemas used for validation would not be touched (as in 
the files were sacrosanct).

Can the restriction be done entirely from an outside "shell" schema 
expression that includes the UBL schema expression?  Is this shell 
schema what trading partners would exchange as part of their 
agreement to the coded values they'll accept?

I looked in your examples directory and I didn't see an example of 
how trading partners would restrict the UBL 2.0 schemas to, say, a 
selection of only three currency values.  Can you include an example 
so that we can see what trading partners would write in order to 
restrict a document's use of currency coded values?

I had anticipated that the changes you were coming up with would 
still validate the "largest set" of coded values, and that 
supplemental processes would be used to validate subsets agreed-upon 
by trading partners.  The UBL schemas would be the first pass 
required to be passed and rejecting instances that would never be 
acceptable anywhere, and the second pass would accommodate trading 
partner agreements.

If this isn't the case, then I should stop the supplemental process 
to do code list coded value validation so that there is only be one 
way to do it.  And that is fine with me to stop this, as it hasn't 
been completely documented ... just let me know ... there really 
shouldn't be two ways to do this.

Thanks, Marty!

. . . . . . . . Ken

Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses:  Denver,CO March 13-17,2006
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

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