RE: [ubl] Extension

["Martin Forsberg" <martin.forsberg@amnis.se>]

Hi David,

To my knowledge, there is no customization methodology ready for UBL yet
so these questions are still to be answered. From my point of view, the
most important thing is that the xml-instance is valid to the
UBL-schemas, also when they are created based on a subset-schema. 

So the NDR rule would be something like: "The Extension ASBIE MAY be
added..." where the MAY is implemented as a button in Gefeg.FX?

Regards,
Martin

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Kruppke [mailto:kruppke@gefeg.com] 
Sent: den 30 maj 2006 21:06
To: Martin Forsberg; Peter Borresen; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: allem@wmdata.com
Subject: AW: [ubl] Extension

Hi Martin,

> It might be that we are talking about different things here. When I 
> say a profiled schema I mean a restricted version of a UBL-schema (or 
> a UBL-model - Restricted perhaps from Gefeg.FX). I want the 
> xml-instances to be conformant to UBL, but I also want the 
> xml-instances to be generated from a subset of UBL. The profiled 
> schema must have the same namespace as UBL.
Do the profiled schemas match the same xml instances as the original
schemas? I think, if not they should have a different namespace. Maybe
it is better to use the original schemas and to describe the
restrictions in a documentation and/or some schematron statements.


>If I use a tool (like yours) to create my profiled  schema based on the

>UBL-models, wouldn't the NDR-rule create the  Extension[0..1] 
>automatically?
Then we invent a button to avoid the automatic creation of these
extensions.



Best regards,


David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Kruppke [mailto:kruppke@gefeg.com]
> Sent: den 30 maj 2006 20:26
> To: Martin Forsberg; Peter Borresen; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: allem@wmdata.com
> Subject: AW: [ubl] Extension
>
> > Does that mean that the Extension is not part of the model? If 
> > Extension is auto generated to all schemas using the UBL-ndr, will 
> > that effect the subsets and profiles?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> The UBL NDR are only valid for original UBL data. There are not 
> applicable for customized data from a group or industry. ( See for 
> instance the rules concerning the namespace values. )
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> David
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Peter Borresen [mailto:PLB@itst.dk]
> > Sent: den 30 maj 2006 16:13
> > To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: David Kruppke; allem@wmdata.com
> > Subject: [ubl] Extension
> >
> >
> > Dear TC
> > I talked to David Kruppke from Gefeg and agreed that Extension 
> > [0..1] is handled as a NDR issue - an element generated from GEFEC 
> > FX in stead being specified in each document.
> > This is the definition of extension we agreed on at the Brussel
> meeting.
> > ID [0..1] (name type)
> > Name [0..1] (name type)
> > AgencyID [0..1] (ID type)
> > AgencyName [0..1] (Name type)
> > VersionID [0..1] (ID type)
> > AgencyURI [0..1] (ID type)
> > URI [0..1] (ID type)
> > ExtensionReasonCode [1..1] (Code type) ExtensionReason [0..1] (text
> > type) ExtensionContentAny [1..1] (xsd: any)
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> >
> > Peter
>
>