[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Extension
Hi David, To my knowledge, there is no customization methodology ready for UBL yet so these questions are still to be answered. From my point of view, the most important thing is that the xml-instance is valid to the UBL-schemas, also when they are created based on a subset-schema. So the NDR rule would be something like: "The Extension ASBIE MAY be added..." where the MAY is implemented as a button in Gefeg.FX? Regards, Martin -----Original Message----- From: David Kruppke [mailto:kruppke@gefeg.com] Sent: den 30 maj 2006 21:06 To: Martin Forsberg; Peter Borresen; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: allem@wmdata.com Subject: AW: [ubl] Extension Hi Martin, > It might be that we are talking about different things here. When I > say a profiled schema I mean a restricted version of a UBL-schema (or > a UBL-model - Restricted perhaps from Gefeg.FX). I want the > xml-instances to be conformant to UBL, but I also want the > xml-instances to be generated from a subset of UBL. The profiled > schema must have the same namespace as UBL. Do the profiled schemas match the same xml instances as the original schemas? I think, if not they should have a different namespace. Maybe it is better to use the original schemas and to describe the restrictions in a documentation and/or some schematron statements. >If I use a tool (like yours) to create my profiled schema based on the >UBL-models, wouldn't the NDR-rule create the Extension[0..1] >automatically? Then we invent a button to avoid the automatic creation of these extensions. Best regards, David > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kruppke [mailto:kruppke@gefeg.com] > Sent: den 30 maj 2006 20:26 > To: Martin Forsberg; Peter Borresen; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: allem@wmdata.com > Subject: AW: [ubl] Extension > > > Does that mean that the Extension is not part of the model? If > > Extension is auto generated to all schemas using the UBL-ndr, will > > that effect the subsets and profiles? > > No, it doesn't. > > The UBL NDR are only valid for original UBL data. There are not > applicable for customized data from a group or industry. ( See for > instance the rules concerning the namespace values. ) > > Best regards, > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Peter Borresen [mailto:PLB@itst.dk] > > Sent: den 30 maj 2006 16:13 > > To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org > > Cc: David Kruppke; allem@wmdata.com > > Subject: [ubl] Extension > > > > > > Dear TC > > I talked to David Kruppke from Gefeg and agreed that Extension > > [0..1] is handled as a NDR issue - an element generated from GEFEC > > FX in stead being specified in each document. > > This is the definition of extension we agreed on at the Brussel > meeting. > > ID [0..1] (name type) > > Name [0..1] (name type) > > AgencyID [0..1] (ID type) > > AgencyName [0..1] (Name type) > > VersionID [0..1] (ID type) > > AgencyURI [0..1] (ID type) > > URI [0..1] (ID type) > > ExtensionReasonCode [1..1] (Code type) ExtensionReason [0..1] (text > > type) ExtensionContentAny [1..1] (xsd: any) > > > > kind regards > > > > > > Peter > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]