At 2007-02-09 06:11 -0700, wrote:
>I just got to a fairly stable state with a customization of
>the UBL Catalogue for an opensource price list product.
I'm very sensitive to this being called "a customization". The
committee has already defined "a customization" and an instance of a
customization must also be an instance of UBL:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200606/msg00095.html
An instance with no namespace or only one namespace is not an
instance of UBL, so I feel very strongly this cannot be called a
customization. I'm investing a lot of time into what I believe the
committee calls "customization" and this is really muddying the waters.
>After
>making a schema as previously mentioned with zero namespaces
>(or at most one)
Then it isn't UBL.
>and just one schema file I went on to
>customise the Catalogue proper UBL schema files too. Both
>can then be used but I made the single-file schema more like
>the UBL proper schema with closer to identical instances by
>starting the element names with 'cbc.' or 'cac.' as below
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <Catalogue xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>
>xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="PriceList-STUDR-UBL-CatalogueSubset-v0-2.xsd">
> <cbc.UBLVersionID
>schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.UBLVersionID>
> <cbc.CustomizationID
> schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.CustomizationID>
> <cbc.ProfileID
> schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ProfileID>
> <cbc.ID schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ID>
> <cbc.IssueDate>1967-08-13</cbc.IssueDate>
> <cac.ProviderParty>
> <cac.PartyIdentification>
> <cbc.ID
> schemeID="normalizedString">normalizedString</cbc.ID>
> </cac.PartyIdentification>
>...
>
>It isn't ideal (much better if I could somehow use the prefixes with
>just one namespace but that seems to be treated as invalid in the
>instances you have with UBL's schema design).
I don't know what you are saying here ... there are a number of
namespaces in a UBL instance.
>It does work so far
>though and a simple transformation both to and from UBL proper
>instances is made possible while allowing validation against a
>necessarily simpler schema. Reiterating:- that's a schema with no
>more than one namespace and no more than one module/physical file.
That isn't UBL ... if the tools don't accommodate the definition of
the data, then please change the tools, not the definition of UBL.
>I attach a copy of this baseline package with
>1. custom UBL schemas (note the simplified qualified datatypes)
>2. single file schemas (STU, STUDR)
>
>There are corresponding view only XForms thrown in for those who
>have an XForms viewer (try Firefox 2 with XForms extension, say).
>
>CAM would be used to formally and more properly define the UBL
>customization.
Can you please find another word for this? This is not "UBL
Customization", and we have tried to be careful and we are at an
important juncture as we start deploying customizations.
If we use this word for what you are doing, then I'm very concerned
about how all of our efforts may become fragmented and confusing to
our new user community.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and 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
