[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: Making references
At 2009-11-30 23:22 +0100, JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino wrote: >I am not sure we are changing the meaning of the ext:UBLExtension/cbc:ID, Oh? The definition currently reads: "An identifier for the Extension assigned by the creator of the extension." ... and that clearly states it is an identifier for the extension itself, not an identifier with another semantic for use within the extension. It is extrinsic to the extension data. >in fact we are not constraining the implementer to use a particular >ID. The extensions IDs can be still considered as a primary key for >UBL extensions or whatever else. No, not "whatever else". It is defined to identify the extension, implicitly to me "amongst other extensions". >We just need to recommend that the ID of the extension containing >the signature will have to be the same used in cac:Signature/cbc:ID No, because that changes the meaning. And the cardinality is wrong. We want schema validation to succeed when using the extension, so we need sig:Signature to have a mandatory cbc:ID so that when it is absent the instance is invalid. >We could say that cac:Signature/cbc:ID is the foreign key pointing >to the UBLExtension primary key. No, I think we should say cac:Signature/cbc:ID points to sig:Signature/cbc:ID because ext:UBLExtension/cbc:ID is optional and likely won't be used since people typically will not have many extensions. And, now that you are using the word "key", that certainly implies to me that the identifier is mandatory ... but that is already implied by the earlier discussion that we need a correlation from the body to the signature in the extension. >Do I miss something ? I'm not sure what it might be ... I've already tried to convey the importance of not changing the definitions standardized by the committee. I feel strongly we cannot overload the semantics of ext:UBLExtension/cbc:ID, and I don't want to oblige people to profile their schemas to make it mandatory (and if they are using other UBL extensions they will most likely not want it to be mandatory in the schema). Since we cannot change the definition or cardinality of ext:UBLExtension/cbc:ID, then we must introduce our own sig:Signature/cbc:ID with its own definition and cardinality. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Vote for your XML training: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/ Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video Video lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18 Video overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18 G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 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]