OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Fw: Namespaces

  • 1.  Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-msg] Re: Fw: Namespaces

    Posted 11-08-2001 15:58
    Arvola,
    
    Sorry, as mentioned previously, I've been swamped
    with the day-job and haven't been paying enough
    attention. My bad.
    
    The thing I have a problem with in using URN's for
    the namespace is that many parsers want to find the
    schema at the URI of the namespace. If we were to
    use a URN there, it would necessitate that either
    xsi:schemaLocation be specified explicitly in ALL
    messages or else a mapping would need to be made
    between the URN and the schema location.
    
    Basically, (IMO) I don't think that use of a URN for the
    namespace value is a good idea. I see no reason to
    change the namespace from http://oasis-open.org/...
    
    I *do* see value in using the URNs for the URI's we
    have specified that are NOT intended to be resolvable
    such as the MSH-specific service URIs.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Chris
    
    Arvola Chan wrote:
    
    > Chris and David:
    > 
    > When I saw the message from Chris suggesting use of the namespace
    > that OASIS has registered, I did a search in the regrep TC mail
    > archive and found the following:
    > 
    > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200111/msg00010.html
    > 
    > I noticed the following declarations under the schema element in
    > registry.xsd v 1.8
    > 
    >   targetNamespace = "urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-regrep:registry:xsd:2.0"
    >   xmlns:tns = "urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-regrep:registry:xsd:2.0"
    > 
    > I thought it would be a good idea to get the ebXML-related OASIS
    > specs aligned and to have consistent namespace specifications.
    > That was why I sent the attached message hoping for feedback
    > from Chris.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > -Arvola
    > 
    >