At 2009-12-20 15:36 +0000, Stephen Green wrote:
>Going back to the original reasons for including
>the Core Components Types as a schema in UBL 1.0,
>we did so for information reference only since no
>other schema 'uses' it. It is a bit like an abstract
>concept schema and the only connection of other
>artefacts to it is conceptual.
I understand that was its original purpose, yes.
>The unqualified
>datatypes depend on these core component types
>in the model, not in the schema package.
Agreed, but the unqualified data types chosen by UN/CEFACT do not
include the supplementary components we need for some types, and they
hard wire the code list stuff we don't need.
>The
>unqualified datatypes have no schema reference to
>the core component types but their *design* stems from
>the core component types.
Yes, I understand that. But is it "wrong" to find a home for the
core component type schema fragment in the schema hierarchy? My plan
was to explore creating the UBL UDT by importing the CCT schema, thus
inheriting all of the supplementary components and having none of the
decisions made by UN/CEFACT in their UDT.
>It is the qualified datatypes
>which have the UBL-specific details such as code lists
>choices determined by the modelers.
Right in UBL 2.0 but it has been proposed (and accepted) that in UBL
2.1 UBL-specific details such as code list choices determined by the
modelers will be expressed in a CVA file for use in the second pass
value-validation of instances.
>The UBL business
>model architects should have no influence at all on
>the core component types or the unqualified datatypes
Agreed. Totally.
My question stemmed from the current SGTG proposal where I derive a
code-list-free version of the UN/CEFACT UDT and then augment that in
the UBL UDT to bring in the supplementary components we need that
UN/CEFACT chose not to expose:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=34338
It is proposed for UBL 2.1 that all business objects are based on the
UBL UDT, not on the UBL 2.0 UN/CEFACT UDT.
When I get the time to look at it, I will try to create that very UBL
UDT to simply import the UN/CEFACT CCT to get the supplementary
components we need without any of the current UN/CEFACT decisions of
hardwired code lists.
It has already been proven that UBL 2.1 cannot use the UBL 2.0
UN/CEFACT UDT because of validating instance-level metadata and
creating the union of out-of-date code lists and up-to-date code lists.
>but only on the qualified datatypes (such as codelist
>bound qualified code types). So it still seems confusing
>to even include the CCT schema in the package (though
>I don't recollect if the NDR says to do so).
Hopefully I've clarified where I will be looking when I get around to
do this. I'm delayed with some (welcome) revenue work that is
occupying my time.
With Roberto's help in finding the latest CCT, I'll see if I can pull
it together and I'll publish an updated SGTG.
BTW, since all of the business objects are already based on the UBL
UDT in the draft SGTG for 2.1, this work will be irrelevant to
Fulya's work on generating the aggregate and basic schema
fragments. This is lower level. I'm just trying to find the way to
do it without having to derive something from the UN/CEFACT UDT fragment.
. . . . . . . . . Ken
--
UBL and Code List training:
Copenhagen, Denmark 2010-02-08/10
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training after http://XMLPrague.cz 2010-03-15/19
XSLT/XQuery/XPath training:
San Carlos, California 2010-04-26/30
Vote for your XML training:
http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video lesson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18
Video overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18
G. Ken Holman
mailto:
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
