MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
From: Anne Hendry <>
To: Eduardo Gutentag <>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:11:59 -0700
If this is dictated by rfc 3121, not by the TC, why do we need an NDR
for it? It seems at the moment we have an NDR that may conflict with
this rfc unless
these ubl ndr name components can be mapped to these rfc 3121 name
components:
'ubl' -> 'specification-id'
'schema' -> 'type'
'name' -> 'subtype'
'major:minor' -> 'document-id'
Even so, if Eduardo is correct about the need to make the document-id
1.0 rather than 1:0 (which makes a lot of sense) then the rule is still
incorrect because of the ":" between major and minor. Is there really a
need for an NDR for the entire URN? The only part of such a rule that
would be needed is something to state which values UBL will use for
which components of the rfc 3121 urn that are *not* dictated by the rfc
(specification-id, type, subtype, documen-id). Repeating the other
parts of the urn in the ndrs seems to me to be redundant and a source
for problems .
-A
:{type}{:subtype}?:{document-id}
Also
-A
Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
> On 07/19/2004 01:19 PM, wrote:
>
>> The committee drafts are just that- drafts. Specification is reserved
>> for those that complete the oasis process.
>
>
> If we are talking about *the* document that will be presented for OASIS
> membership approval as an OASIS Standard, then it has to follow the
> naming rules contained in RFC 3121
> (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3121)
>
> I thought we were talking about *the* document. I've also just gone and
> re-read the RFC, which I should have done to begin with...
>
> The URN should be:
>
> urn:oasis:names:specification:<specification-id>:schema:xsd:1.0
>
> Note that <specification-id> should be provided by OASIS. I certainly
> believe that "ubl" is appropriate, but we should make sure that Karl
> Best is aware of this and approves of it as specification-id; I may
> be rehashing things...
>
> Note that OASIS (Karl) should assign type and subtype, but I believe
> using schema:xsd should not be a problem.
>
> Note that it should say "1.0", not "1:0", I believe (although
> the RFC could be read as saying that <document-id> [which is what
> this would be] should be provided by OASIS too.)
>
> Sorry if this introduces even more confusion.
>
> If we are not talking about *the* document then the urgency of
> getting it right decreases, even though it would indeed be nice
> getting it right.
>
>
>> Mark R. Crawford
>> Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
>> W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
>> Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
>> Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
>> Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
>> --
>> LMI Government Consulting
>> 2000 Corporate Ridge
>> McLean, VA 22102-7805
>> 703.917.7177 Phone
>> 703.655.4810 Wireless
>> The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater
>> www.lmi.org
>>
>>
