MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Schema Modularity and Imports/Includes
Mark, others,
We identified this conflict (or a related one) in San Francisco in
November and didn't resolve it. I think Mark posed the question clearly.
I seem to recall that we thought that the answer was probably "no", but
we didn't give it a great deal of consideration. This is just a little
history--not a recommendation of what we should do. I'd have to think
about it a bit more to arrive at a recommendation.
One clarifying question though. What's the distinction between "external
control schema" and "control schema"? I suspect there is none, but if
there is, we should be clear about what it is. The term "external
control schema" doesn't occur in the NDR document.
Regards,
Jim Wilson
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:44 AM
To: UBL Design Rules (E-mail)
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Schema Modularity and Imports/Includes
Folks,
On today's CEFACT ATG Call, we discussed the UBL modularity approach. A
question came up regarding the ability of internal schema modules to
import external schema modules/control schemas. Figure 3-1 does not
reflect any imports by internal schema modules. Figure 3-3 implies that
the 4 fixed external schema modules (CAT, CBT, RT, DT) are imported by
the internal schema modules rather than the control schema. The text on
or about line 1143 states "Any UBL schema module, be it a control schema
or an internal module may import other control schemas from other
namespaces". These seem to be in conflict with each other. My question
is - Do we need/want the internal schema modules to have the ability to
import external control schema/schema modules?
Mark
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]