MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] RE: A discussion paper on UBL modeling issues and implementation
From: "G. Ken Holman" <>
To:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:19:32 -0400
I'm sorry, Juerg, that I misunderstood you.
At 2006-06-14 02:27 +0000, wrote:
>a) yes, makes sense that the author is
>responsible. In the current NDR 2.0 it is
>language construct that (partly) assures compatibility.
>b) I can see the proposed approach also being
>applied to CAC and CBC, which have elements, but
>not to QDT which has no elements.
>c) I'm a little surprised that there may not be
>any minor versions for the library modules.
Oh, is that what you mean?
>In the examples shown in the discussion paper, I
>see many BBIE's which I believe ought to be
>defined in CBC. Therefore, I assume that if a
>minor version of a document schema introduces a
>new BBIE, that it ought to be placed into a new
>minor version CBC. Or am I misunderstanding the approach?
I misunderstood your question, Jureg, and for
that I apologize. I thought your "Are we
envisaging minor version library modules?"
question was "Are we envisaging an entire new
sub-tree just with the minor versions?" as if it
were a new branch in the tree like we did with the extension point.
I anticipate the need to prepare to have new BBIE
constructs (and possibly new ABIE constructs)
introduced throughout 2.1 and in each case they
are needed they will be added as a last child to
the end of the appropriately-selected parent
element. So we may find a 2.1 construct anywhere
in the document tree, and not just a single
location the way we did the extension point. W3C
Schema rules require all declarations in a given
namespace to be in a single schema file (if this
is what you mean by module), so in the 2.1
version of the 2.0 file of schema declarations
there will be an import of the 2.1 constructs
from the 2.1 namespace declared in a 2.1 file of schema declarations.
The end result will be the 2.0 elements retaining
their 2.0 namespace URI string and the new 2.1
elements found anywhere therein getting the new
2.1 namespace URI string, so that established
implementations will continue to recognize the
constructs for which they have been written to
process. But there will be new 2.1 ABIE and BBIE
constructs being added as required.
Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding
your question. Thanks for asking for a clarification.
. . . . . . . . . . . Ken
--
Registration open for UBL training: Montr�al, Canada 2006-08-07
Also for XSL-FO/XSLT training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04
Also for UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Varo,Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman mailto:
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
