>
> My matter concerned not adding data to UBL documents but
> adding UBl documents to other documents (in my case an
> XBRL-GL document *after* the sending and receiving of the UBL
> message). In this case it seems appropriate to use a header
> such as SBDH because it isn't a matter of adding another XMl
> document to UBL, but for some the latter may be an acceptable
> proceedure.
>
> I suggested that there could be an xsd:type for XML and since
> it was pointed out to me (thanks Chee-Kai!) that xsd:any is
> just that.
I am strongly opposed to the use of xsd:any in data centric standards.
If we follow this path, then lets just have two types cac:Any and
cac:Thing
>
> So I'd suggest we add (or better still ATG2 add) a datatype
> or set of datatypes like 'XMLType' (or 'StructuredDataType', say)
> 1) based on xsd:any or something like it (xinclude?) and/or another
> 2) based on xlink or something like it
> which would allow, completely at the modelers' discretion, the
> 1) inclusion and/or 2) referencing of structured (XML) data
> in an element where it is appropriate to link, add or in some
> other way associate XML from another schema in a UBL document.
> The metadata attributes (supplementary components) should
> include the schema information of the linked, included or
> associated XML.
ATG2 has no intent of ever adding such a construct. There are no
provisions for it in ccts. Remember, the UDT is a direct reflection of
CCTS CCT's.
>
>
> I'd also suggest we might try picking up on old liaisons with
> XBRL to see how best practise guidelines might be developed
> for the special case of linking UBL documents to XBRL
> (especially, perhaps, GL) documents.
As soon as XBRL agrees to adopt ISO 15000-5.
Mark
