I would agree on this issue. With or Without documentation it is (or at
least should be) the same schema with the same validation results. So here
I would agree that one namespace applies.
Where I have problems with one namespace is for my usage - where I might
only want to bring in the UBL code lists or UBL basic data types (those
re-usable pieces) because I would want to use them in my own schemas for a
vertical industry that doesn't do much with PO's and order management. I
would also like to get to some of the common things like address and party
without having the whole UBL universe imported into my environment. I want
selective reuse and I don't know how to do that when there is one namespace
and one file.
..dan
At 10:34 PM 7/2/2003 +0100, Anthony B. Coates wrote:
>** Reply to message from "Burcham, Bill" <> on Wed, 2
>Jul 2003 16:02:30 -0500
>
> > I agree with Chee-Kai on this one, it is wrong to have A and A' schemas. I
> > cannot represent Eduardo's viewpoint effectively, so I won't try.
>
>I'm not exactly sure what you mean by A and A' Schemas, but I assume you are
>referring to the earlier discussion on whether it was appropriate to have two
>versions of the same Schema - one with annotations and one without - and apply
>the same namespace URI to both. My personal answer would be 'yes' - as
>long as
>both Schemas validate the same documents in the same way, I think it is
>perfectly reasonable to provide full fat and low fat versions. Although
>people
>could process the full fat version themselves to remove the annotations, my
>experience is that the majority would feel happier using an "approved" low fat
>Schema.
>
> Cheers,
> Tony.
>====
>Anthony B. Coates
>London Market Systems Limited
>33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR
>http://www.londonmarketsystems.com/
>mailto:
>Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
>[MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/]
>[FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language),
>http://www.fpml.org/]
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This Email may contain confidential information and/or copyright material
>and is intended for the use of the addressee only.
>Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this Email by mistake
>please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your
>e-mail software.
>Email is not a secure method of communication and London Market Systems
>Limited cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of
>this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus
>infection, for which London Market Systems Limited accepts no
>responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please
>request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions
>presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of
>London Market Systems Limited.
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php
