23 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ublRe: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jim Wilson | Feb 25, 2003 10:26 am |  .zip |
| Dave Carlson | Feb 25, 2003 4:41 pm | |
| Stuhec, Gunther | Feb 25, 2003 9:58 pm | |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 12, 2003 7:40 am | .doc |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 12, 2003 7:54 am | .doc |
| Stuhec, Gunther | Mar 14, 2003 4:37 pm | |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 14, 2003 5:33 pm | |
| CRAWFORD, Mark | Mar 14, 2003 5:55 pm | |
| Dan Vint | Mar 14, 2003 9:44 pm | |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 15, 2003 4:46 am | |
| Stig Korsgaard | Mar 17, 2003 6:09 am | |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 17, 2003 6:29 am | |
| Dave Carlson | Mar 17, 2003 7:09 am | |
| Stig Korsgaard | Mar 17, 2003 8:11 am | |
| Stig Korsgaard | Mar 17, 2003 8:24 am | |
| CRAWFORD, Mark | Mar 17, 2003 8:28 am | |
| Dave Carlson | Mar 17, 2003 8:55 am | |
| robe...@gerbercoburn.com | Mar 17, 2003 9:01 am | |
| CRAWFORD, Mark | Mar 17, 2003 9:06 am | |
| Dave Carlson | Mar 17, 2003 9:13 am | |
| Eve L. Maler | Mar 19, 2003 6:16 am | |
| Dave Carlson | Mar 19, 2003 7:07 am | |
| Dave Carlson | Mar 19, 2003 7:18 am |
| Subject: | Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Dave Carlson (dcar...@ontogenics.com) | |
| Date: | Mar 19, 2003 7:07:38 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.ubl | |
Hi Eve,
I don't mean to suggest that there are *no* global elements. But an approach I find useful (and have used for the past 2 years when generating XSD from UML) is to declare a global element for complexType, if that complexType has complexContent (i.e. an ABIE).
The global element declaration is *always* in the same schema and same target namespace as its complexType. This leads to a very predictable pattern and easily automatable mapping to/from UML (or other modeling environments, including spreadsheets). The global element name should always be derived from the type name, e.g. "BuyerParty" is the global element for a complexType "BuyerPartyType". Any other element names, especially those based on simpleTypes, are local elements declarations.
Dave
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve L. Maler" <eve....@sun.com>
But if UBL has only reusable types, and not reusable elements, then anyone building a new document out of UBL types will have to bind their own elements (in their own "foreign" namespace) to types in UBL's namespace, which is the skew I referred to earlier. (Or I suppose they could trivially derive a native type from a UBL type every time they want to use something from UBL, but that doesn't seem so practical either.) Is this a problem in practice for UML/OO processing? (I think it may be a problem for those creating and trying to understand instances, and also for those trying to reuse any non-type-aware -- say, XSLT/XPath V1.0 -- software to process the new documents.)