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

Marty, I'm afraid I don't agree with you that this is a good compromise.   
I understand that you have a solution that supports some of our goals.   
However, and this is a big point:

What is the value of a Schema enumeration that doesn't provide any  
validation of instance document values against the enumerated values?

As you pointed out, it gives you pop-ups for enumeration values in XML Spy  
(and perhaps in some other XML editors too), but I don't see that as a  
major requirement or use case.  In fact, I think people would be  
scratching their heads about why we would publish enumerated Schema types  
that don't perform validation.

If we aren't going to validate the values, let's just leave the values out  
of the Schema.  If we have enumerated values in the Schema, let's make  
sure that can be used for validation.  I know that the various constraints  
that we have picked up are making it difficult to find a workable  
solution, but I want to suggest that the guidelines in this paragraph are  
ones we have to follow so that we end up with something that the rest of  
the world will consider to be sensible.

Fair comment, or not?

Cheers, Tony.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:31:23 -0000, <Burnsmarty@aol.com> wrote:

> Stephen,
> 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.
> Marty
> In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:01:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk writes:
> Marty

Anthony B. Coates
London Market Systems Limited
33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR, UK
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
[MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/]
[FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language),  
This Email may contain confidential information and/or copyright material  
and is intended for the use of the addressee only.  Any unauthorised use  
may be unlawful. If you receive this Email by mistake please advise the  
sender immediately by using the reply  facility in your e-mail software.   
Email is not a secure method of communication and London Market Systems  
Limited cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of  
this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus  
infection, for which London Market Systems Limited accepts no  
responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please  
request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions  
presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of  
London Market Systems Limited.

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