Mark,
Coming
at this from another angle, it seems to me that the supplementary components are
meant to be seen in the instance; they provide additional information about the
content. Is this correct? Taking advantage of the facets of an xsd:built-in
datatype is a different issue.
With
the 'format' supplementary component, we could see something
like:
<ShipDate format="YYYY-MM-DD" >2004-03-05</ShipDate>
in the
instance.
Mike
Grimley
Michael,
You did bring up the
issue of facet restriction at the F2F. I
have talked to Gunther, and
Jessica and I did a quick test
with some code and it does
work. You are right that Format per se is not a built-in facet, but pattern is. We can use pattern in the derived
datatype to support the supplementary component of format. That was the
basis of the work that Gunther and Garret
did.
Code
follows:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
< xs:schema
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:element name="ShipDate" type="OrderDate"/>
<xs:element name="ShipDateNew" type="OrderDateNew"/>
<xs:simpleType name="OrderDate">
<xs:restriction base="xs:date"/>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="OrderDateNew">
<xs:restriction base="OrderDate">
<xs:enumeration value="2004-06-09"/>
<xs:enumeration value="2004-06-15"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>
Valid
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
< ShipDate
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation ="C:\Documents and
Settings\jglace\Desktop\Standards\RestrictTest.xsd">2004-03-05</ShipDate>
Invalid
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
< ShipDateNew
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation ="C:\Documents and
Settings\jglace\Desktop\Standards\RestrictTest.xsd">2004-06-30</ShipDateNew>
Valid- if you assume Spy has implemented correctly, this proves that a
restricted built-in that is again further restricted will have the additional
constraints enforced.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
< ShipDateNew
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation ="C:\Documents and
Settings\jglace\Desktop\Standards\RestrictTest.xsd">2004-06-09</ShipDateNew>
Mark
I misspoke. The facets are
available, but some were under the impression that 'Format' was a facet of
these types and it is not.
Mark,
The decision was
made, in Washington, to add the 'Format' supplementary component
after it was determined that none of the attributes/facets of
the xsd:built-in datatypes would be available due to 'our' types being
defined as an empty Restriction of the built-in
type.
Mike
Grimley
Michael,
We initially agreed with
your recommendations, but after further discussion we agreed that we
would be better off to stay with the CCT schema module as jointly agreed
to with OAG and UN/CEFACT. That schema modules leverage the
xsd:built-in datatypes where appropriate and will give us much better
credibility in the XML community at large. Having said that, I
understand that the selective group is making changes to Washington
decisions so I can't really say what the final answer is. However,
I will tell you that unnecessary deviations from joint agreements
with other standards bodies will ensure that UBL will completely
stand alone in its implementation of CCTS, and
will ensure that its support base will be
limited.
Mark
Ooooh, I seem to remember that
the NDR discussion in Washington was just the other way
round and that the group disagreed with my 'simple' CCTS
approach.
Now, I'm confused.
Stephen: help
Michael
Greetings,
As mentioned in a previous email, and not
included below, the
latest CCT schema still has 'DateTime', 'Indicator' and 'Numeric'
types defined as simple types (with a *Restriction* on the built in
type).
I believe we had agreed in
Washington that they would be redefined to conform to the CCTS. That
is, the required supplementary component 'Format' would be added to
the definition of each.
I wasn't able to make yesterday's meeting (until the end,
anyway) and Jon has made it very clear that that is where the
decisions are made; however, this involves CCTS conformance and, if
I am not mistaken, the decision was made in joint session with Tim
and Steve on the phone, so there was good representation of all
concerned SCs.
Thank You,
Mike
Grimley
|