MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
From: Eduardo Gutentag <>
To:
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:32:53 -0700
On 07/19/2004 01:19 PM, wrote:
> The committee drafts are just that- drafts. Specification is reserved
> for those that complete the oasis process.
If we are talking about *the* document that will be presented for OASIS
membership approval as an OASIS Standard, then it has to follow the
naming rules contained in RFC 3121 (http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=3121)
I thought we were talking about *the* document. I've also just gone and
re-read the RFC, which I should have done to begin with...
The URN should be:
urn:oasis:names:specification:<specification-id>:schema:xsd:1.0
Note that <specification-id> should be provided by OASIS. I certainly
believe that "ubl" is appropriate, but we should make sure that Karl
Best is aware of this and approves of it as specification-id; I may
be rehashing things...
Note that OASIS (Karl) should assign type and subtype, but I believe
using schema:xsd should not be a problem.
Note that it should say "1.0", not "1:0", I believe (although
the RFC could be read as saying that <document-id> [which is what
this would be] should be provided by OASIS too.)
Sorry if this introduces even more confusion.
If we are not talking about *the* document then the urgency of
getting it right decreases, even though it would indeed be nice
getting it right.
> Mark R. Crawford
> Senior Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
> W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
> Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
> Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
> Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
> --
> LMI Government Consulting
> 2000 Corporate Ridge
> McLean, VA 22102-7805
> 703.917.7177 Phone
> 703.655.4810 Wireless
> The opportunity to make a difference has never been greater
> www.lmi.org
>
>
