MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: Core Components
Garret has asked me the
following question -
> We have been struggling
with CCTs and Data Types over the past couple of weeks and have come across
several situations where CCTs do not appear to > provide
enough flexibility. For example, we were trying to define some of the XML
Schema data types as CCTS data types and got stuck at anyURI. This > XML Schema
data type does not fit very well into the list of approved CCTs. We also
came across a few instances where a proposed data type would be > better
represented as a simple string rather than a Text CCT with an associated
Language. Identifier. Are there any recommendations about how to represent > XML Schema
data types in CCTS syntax?
My initial reaction
is that we would not expect a one to one
relationship as CCT data types are not syntax dependant. However this
answer leaves me cold. My next reaction was to reply that since anyURI is
a type of string, then simply use Text. Type. However this looses the
ability to do data type validation against the xxxx://. My next reaction
was that the syntax binding of CCT data types would be accomplished by the
constraints language, but I am not sure that the Attribute Construct is
adequate. So I turned to the UBL NDR document with no satisfaction and
finally to the Definition of Elements, Attributes, and Types - still no
resolution. So it seems, unless I am missing something, that we have not
determined if or how we are going to directly associate XSD built-in or
user-defined data types with CCT data types. Any
comments?
Mark
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC