[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
Eduardo Thanks for these comments. I thought, looking at the rule, that it should be changed to xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:Order:1:0" or is that what it should be prior to standards approval? Also, should we be going back to prefixing with draft numbers until we are sure we have a bug-free set of Schemas? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eduardo Gutentag" <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM> To: "Grimley Michael J NPRI" <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil> Cc: <Anne.Hendry@Sun.COM>; <mcrawford@lmi.org>; <Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM>; <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas > Right, > > changing > > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1:0" > to > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:ubl:Order:1:0" > > (and others accordingly) should be enough. Unless what is being changed is > the TC spec previous to Standards approval. If that is the case then we would > have to re-think this answer... > > On 07/16/2004 06:27 AM, Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote: > > Anne, > > > > To answer Question 1, see Rule NMS5: > > > > [NMS5] The namespace names for UBL Schemas holding OASIS Standard status MUST be of the form: > > > > urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:<name>:<major>:<minor> > > > > This pretty much answers Question 2 as well, because it is version 1.0 of the OASIS spec. (The other was 1.0 of the TC draft.) > > > > Thank You, > > MikeG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anne Hendry [mailto:anne.hendry@sun.com] > > Sent: Thursday, 15 July 2004 21 24 > > To: mcrawford@lmi.org; Eduardo.Gutentag; GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil; jon.bosak@sun.com > > Cc: stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk > > Subject: what to do about namespaces in schemas > > > > Since we are changing the schemas we are wondering how to handle the updating of the namespace in a couple of ways. Where we have, for example, > > > > xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:Order:1:0" > > xmlns:ccts="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CoreComponentParameters:1:0" > > xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonBasicComponents:1:0" > > xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:CommonAggregateComponents:1:0" > > > > xmlns:res="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:codelist:AcknowledgementResponseCode:1:0" > > xmlns:udt="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:UnspecializedDatatypes:1:0" > > xmlns:sdt="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:SpecializedDatatypes:1:0" > > xmlns:cur="urn:oasis:names:tc:ubl:codelist:CurrencyCode:1:0" > > > > 1. Do we need to change the 'tc' part now that it's becoming an OASIS spec, 2. Do we also need to change the 1:0 part since we these schemas will be different than the earlier 1:0 schemas we released? We could have it as 1.0-draft-1, or 1.0.1 or something like that. Or are we intending that everyone that receives this final release will replace any previous one marked '1.0'. This could cause a lot of confusiion, though, as I'm not sure how one would identify the 'correct' 1.0 schemas once they were installed and/or circulated. > > > > This needs to be thought out now because we're changing the ccp schema now and this may well never be changed again without any other reason. > > > > Stephen/Anne > > > > -- > Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM > Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442 > Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]