Michael,
I think the problem here stems from a solution specific
approach that is beyond the stated need or desire for UBL
to define XML tag names - a good idea in my opinion.
But there is now a push to incorporate the details of W3C
XML Schema Definition Language directly into the UBL model,
rather than keep them isolated and distinct from the business
model. The results I believe are causing the current concerns.
In my opinion, making the model schema specific instead of
keeping it schema neutral makes the UBL model less abstract,
and may ultimately limit its use. It makes UBL less of the true
"universal" solution I had hoped for, and very much more of a
tool specific one.
Phil Griffin
Michael Adcock wrote:
