> >The extensible bit is in the vocabulary and how customizers use that
> >vocabulary and our normative schema. Not in how we create our
> >normative schema.
>
> The extensible bit is only in a vocabulary if that vocabulary
> is extensible.
> It seems to me that you're arguing not so much for
> extensibility but reusability.
The vocabulary is extensible - through the creation of new context
specific BIEs in the base model. It is also extensible through
customization outside of the standards process between trading partner
individuals and groups.
> That said, as I've argued before, substitution groups are not
> as extensible a mechanism as use of xsd:any.
Sure. Lets have two types in UBL. Any and Thing with unlimited content
models. Very extensible - and totally useless for setting STANDARDS.
Regards,
Mark
