[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Re: [ubl] Specialised DataTypes Schema Module
Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> wrote on 17.03.2004, 11:08:39: ... > The entire argument for using a combined SDT schema seems to be its > possible future value for customisation. This is based on the idea that > the combined SDT acts as an index to the code list schemas. I think the > argument goes... if we change a code list schema we need only change the > index to update the document schemas. I am not sure you make the case > that this is essential for introducing substitution groups. in fact, > the CLSC paper's examples are based on not having the combined SDT > module - so clearly we can use the substitution group method of > extension without it. The real problem I'd like to highlight is that, although the CLSC paper does not include the SDT module, we may well need it in order to ensure a backwards compatible move from 1.0 to the full CLSC design. We would need it now to ensure, not so much having substitutionGroups later but to ensure that a move from not having them to having them is as backward compatible as possible. It all depends a bit on what people define as 'backwards compatibilty' so I'd take the worse case scenario and assume we need minimal disruption to Schema Modules (least change to fewest modules) as well as minimal or zero disruption to instances. All the best Steve
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]