ubl — archive

Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue

From: Martin Burns
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:35:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue




From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:48:42 EST








In a message dated 3/11/2004 4:38:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
This looks to me like the same use case; the only difference is
that the trigger for the creation of an expanded special-use code
list came from IBM rather than BSI.  You're going to go through
the same committee meetings and the same software revision to
implement this change that you would in my original example.
I don't intend it to be the same use case. When IBM conspires with its suppliers it is not working with BSI or UBL. It is a private activity to them. We want them to be able to do this without assistance or permission from any committee and, importantly, without altering ubl or other base schemas.


So my question remains: how much work total have we saved at the
expense of using a mechanism we explicitly ruled out for the rest
of the specification?
I haven't seen the rationale they used for ruling it out, but I would suggest that this can and should be a special case for code lists. It is a problem unique to the extension of enumerated values that doesn't appear elsewhere in XMLSchema to my knowledge. XMLSchema has other extension mechanisms that apply to other cases.


If you are saying that this would allow valid UBL instances to
include currency codes from alien namespaces without changing the
namespace of the instance, I believe that we are all agreed now
that this would be a bug, not a feature.  If instances are going
to be coming into my system that have unexpected currency codes,
then I want those instances to carry a namespace that tells me up
front that they have data structures that my system doesn't know
how to handle.
 
I agree with your assessment here that this would be a bug. We want all extensions clear, namespace qualified, and validate-able. It is not possible to do this extension without a namespace change, and I think this is what we want.


(Bear in mind that I am not an XSD guru, so if I'm missing
something here, let me know.)

Jon
Hope this helps,
Marty





Follow-Ups:

RE: [ubl] A Codelist Issue
From: "Sylvia Webb" <[email protected]>








[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]