Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Global attributes and publishing markup
Phil,
> 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.
I am not sure this is the case with the current discussion. Could you provide more details please?
> 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.
While I appreciate your position, I harken back to the discussion the NDR group has had on design rules. We chose XSD as the cannonical form for UBL. That decision was based on a number of factors. We also said that although we were mindful of, and fully support the desires of, others to express UBL in other schema syntax - such as Relax NG and AS1 we would not suboptimize our XSD based approaches.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Griffin [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:28 PM
> To: Michael Adcock
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Global attributes and publishing markup
>
