[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@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.) >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]