MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->


















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue




From: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:30:45 -0000






Further on substiutionGroups:

Is the reason for using a substitutionGroup and an abstract element so that
one can change the enumerations without needing to change the namespace?

I was perhaps the main proponent for allowing 'plug-and-play' so I feel a
little
responsible here; since last week and Jon's explanation of the desire *not*
to allow the updating of a codelist Schema *without* corresponding changes
in namespaces in the whole of the UBL set of Schemas, I now feel convinced
by the argument. This is unfortunate in one sense because I now find myself
seeming hypocritical in arguing against the very thing I so persistently
asked for.
Nevertheless I'd be happier if we all agreed whether we go for allowing
changes
without namespace changes or not doing so. This decision, I think, would
have major
implications (correct me XSD experts if I'm wrong) on whether we use
substitutionGroups as proposed by the example and instructions from the
CLSC.
(The finer details of what is involved with either abstract elements or
abstract types
I admit I'm new to so I'd rely on what others have said but there does seem
to be
a lot of advice around about this which seems to support my concerns at
least.)

Steve