atom feed23 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ublRe: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther...
FromSent OnAttachments
Jim WilsonFeb 25, 2003 10:26 am.zip
Dave CarlsonFeb 25, 2003 4:41 pm 
Stuhec, GuntherFeb 25, 2003 9:58 pm 
Eve L. MalerMar 12, 2003 7:40 am.doc
Eve L. MalerMar 12, 2003 7:54 am.doc
Stuhec, GuntherMar 14, 2003 4:37 pm 
Eve L. MalerMar 14, 2003 5:33 pm 
CRAWFORD, MarkMar 14, 2003 5:55 pm 
Dan VintMar 14, 2003 9:44 pm 
Eve L. MalerMar 15, 2003 4:46 am 
Stig KorsgaardMar 17, 2003 6:09 am 
Eve L. MalerMar 17, 2003 6:29 am 
Dave CarlsonMar 17, 2003 7:09 am 
Stig KorsgaardMar 17, 2003 8:11 am 
Stig KorsgaardMar 17, 2003 8:24 am 
CRAWFORD, MarkMar 17, 2003 8:28 am 
Dave CarlsonMar 17, 2003 8:55 am 
robe...@gerbercoburn.comMar 17, 2003 9:01 am 
CRAWFORD, MarkMar 17, 2003 9:06 am 
Dave CarlsonMar 17, 2003 9:13 am 
Eve L. MalerMar 19, 2003 6:16 am 
Dave CarlsonMar 19, 2003 7:07 am 
Dave CarlsonMar 19, 2003 7:18 am 
Subject:Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation
From:Dave Carlson (dcar@ontogenics.com)
Date:Mar 19, 2003 7:18:22 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.ubl

One more comment that I meant to put in my last message. If someone is building a new customization based on the UBL library, and they want to specify a new *role* for an existing type without changing the type definition, then a local element declaration should be used.

For example, within AcmeOrder specialization:

<xs:element name="DropShipAddress" type="cat:AddressType" />

This declares a new element within Order and reuses an existing type, but not an existing element.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Carlson" <dcar@ontogenics.com> To: <ub@lists.oasis-open.org> Cc: "VANDAMME Frank" <fran@swift.com>; "Garret Minakawa" <garr@oracle.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [ubl] Global vs. Local -- Gunther's Recommendation

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.

----- 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.)