Title: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
Since the schema location is versioned, not sure why you keep referring to it as vague.
Mark R. Crawford
Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee and OASIS Representative,
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Applied Technologies Group
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Co-Chair ISO TC154 Subcommittee for ISO 15000-5
--
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green <>
To: <>
Sent: Wed Jul 20 10:25:03 2005
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
Of course, the version attribute of the schema
is useless in this regard, as would be annotations
for CCTS which, too, are only held in the schema.
Neither can be referenced in the instance, only,
correct me if I'm wrong, the namespace and the
schemaLocation (which could be vague) can
appear in the instance to identify a schema or
an identifier within the schema in a well-known,
standard way. Creating a BIE so that something
else in instances does the same job, or worse, putting
that data into another document separate from the
instance, IMHO just moves the version data to somewhere
far less well-known, far less established.
Besides, I though it was intended that UBL supports
uses which are independant of ebXML, so forcing
use of CCTS-aware registries seems contrary to that
(if that is the alternative being offered to XSD derivation).
Likewise, adopting approaches as alternatives to
straightforward (though complex) uses of XSD seems
contrary to another NDR first principle of UBL.
Steve
I doubt even more whether
the version attribute could do the job. I doubt
more still that it could be done with a UBL BIE
for version.
11. I hope nobody suggests that the version
annotation in the schema be used !! :-)
