Hi Stephen
Well I suppose I can agree with that, however for political reasons I think
it best not to have any validation done via schematron that could
theoretically be done using XSD. That is just a 'personal' feeling. That
said I do like Tony's suggestion, and while the syntax as specified would
not be enough to provide for the needs of schematron I suppose that it could
always be extended by those intending to use Schematron. I like it because
the meaning is more clearly delineated, always a plus.
I passed it to a couple of the other people in the office on other projects,
James Walford made the observation that he also thought that it was pretty
nice but in the end - given the example of the the days of the week - hasn't
one just made a new list of values 0-7 that have some particular meaning? By
mapping between the various lists has one then not just made a central list
of higher authority? (please note this is probably a poor synopsis of what
Jamie was getting at, but it will pass) Not sure if I care about that since
all categorizations struggle with questions of authority, maintenance and
the like, I could however foresee some day when UBL is the list organization
referenced by some other organization, while the UBL list is an aggregation
of other codelists. A higher level list built up of other lists. The
concepts start to become somewhat rareified.
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm against the codelist suggestion of
Tony's. I am actually very much for it, I know this is a rather strange way
of being for something but sometimes this is how I react when a small
niggling thing bugs me, in this context generating schematron schemas that I
wouldn't find particularly useful as such, and which because of possessing
functional equivalence with an XSD enumerated list would be likely to
generate complaints among various parties along the lines of:
Why couldn't you just do it as XML Schema?! XML Schema is good, it
comes from W3C, I am an information architect, fear my buzzwords!!
- or something like that.
So yeah, to summarize -
+1 on Tony's codelists, +1 on generating W3C schema instances and other
usages for the format, not such an interest in generating schematron but
interest in extending format to make schematron generation useful.
:)
Cheers
Bryan Rasmussen
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Stephen Green [mailto:]
Sendt: 15. august 2005 16:53
Til:
Emne: Re: [ubl] Code list schema
Bryan
Wouldn't you agree it is unlikely that we'd
get an XSD schema to validate such a
code - i.e. where any codelist XSD is
not imported by the UBL XSDs and has
to act on its own. This is where I would
see Schematron 'coming into its own'.
On the other hand who says the XSD has
to actually validate anything - it could
just document content in a standard way.
All the best
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Rasmussen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:21 PM
Subject: SV: [ubl] Code list schema
>
> I should probably specify that in the earlier mail where I said
> >The codelists they will represent could be just as easily represented in
> >XSD.
> I was speaking in the context of say the enumerated list of values for
> country codes, in cases where the codelist applies to an element Country -
>
> not in instances where an elements content is really dependent on which
> value has been enumerated in an attribute.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
