[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Atlantic UBL TC call 8 September 2010
At 2010-09-12 17:45 -0400, Jon Bosak wrote: >UBL 2 XAdES PROFILE > > JB: The W3C schema validation limitation on multiple extensions > argues for putting the XAdES mechanism in the UBL document > schemas themselves. This should be thought about in the PRD1 > review cycle. What are the main reasons for implementing > advanced digital signatures as an extension? > > GKH: There are two: > > 1. We can apply the same extension framework to 2.0 schemas as > well by just copying in the different extension content. > > 2. XAdES solves digital signatures for Europe, but users in > other communities may want to specify something different. Which, perhaps, indicates we are being too bold to call the apex element generically as "sig:UBLSignatures" instead of more specifically "sig:XAdESSignatures". I think this will be one of my items of feedback for PRD2. > To be resolved in PRD2. Other reasons I've been thinking of that didn't come to mind when asked during the call: 3. Its structure provides an ideal model for designers of extensions to follow. 4. These signature objects are not business objects but very specific "implementation" objects. They are related to the signature business objects in the common library (hence the reference), but an XAdES profile of the W3C digital signature vocabulary *isn't* a business object. Until now most of the objects in the common library are business objects or *generic* implementation objects, not *specific* implementation objects. 5. The isolation of the signature stuff in its own set of namespaces allows it to be easily elided from an instance (as is true for all extensions). On the other hand, it also allows signature information to be added after the document has been completed without venturing into and changing the business objects of the instance. This promotes an isolation of software such that the signature software doesn't need to know about the business objects (though of course it has to know about extension objects, so it isn't entirely oblivious). When I think of others, I'll post again to add to the list. . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- XSLT/XQuery training: after http://XMLPrague.cz 2011-03-28/04-01 Vote for your XML training: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/ Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ 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]