Stephen,
You are truly waxing eloquent on the subject. I can only agree with your
sentiments here.
Marty
In a message dated 7/19/2005 7:42:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:
And at
the risk of saying too much,
a look at the alternative:
XSD without
derivation looks to me
like XML without eXtensibility, a
misnomer. It
would put us back to the
days of csv and fixed width (which some
still
argue is where they'd rather be :-( ).
XML does provide a major
overhead
to developers and those who fund them.
I'd argue then that
without the promised
facilitation of controlled extensibility
(without
the namespace change seems to
me to be without the control) there
is
little return on investment in terms of
software/standards
features.
If XSD is the de facto way to use XML
then I'd argue that
it seems more and
more that substtution groups are
becoming the de facto
way to use
XSD to provide eXtensibility in XML,
especially when faced
with a library
standard such as UBL.
All the
best
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen
Green" <>
To: "CRAWFORD, Mark"
<>; <>
Sent: Tuesday,
July 19, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution
groups
> >Exactly what is gained by using type derivation
rather
> >than just defining a new type that replaces the old in our
schema?
>
> >Mark
>
> 1. control of extension and
restriction
> using the XSD derivation
rules
> is enforced by compliant
tools
>
> 2. the XSD derivation provides a trail
>
- a trace back to the types
> from which
derivations were made
> (helps with audit
requirements, etc)
> 2a. compliant tools provide a better,
>
richer experience to developers
>
> 3. this is
becoming a more ubiquitous
> way to extend/restrict -
audit
> rules tend to expect financial
software
> to follow such ubiquitous
>
software designs and methodologies
> (in
my limited experience)
>
> 4. people are wanting XML to
deliver
> on the eXtensible bit (see
ubl-dev)
>
> 5. software vendors are increasingly
>
investing in substitution group
>
support (hence 2a above and more)
>
> 6. this delivers on UBL's
original
> promise of polymorphic
inheritance
> (albeit at a price of a single
rule
> about sg's being dropped or
qualified)
>
> 7. this buys into the benefits of
using
> global rather than local
>
> 8.
this best fits the OO development
> practises (see
JAXB)
>
> [ ref - 'ver' our minor versioning working group
recommendation ]
>
>
> I could go on...
>
> All
the best
>
> Steve
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in
OASIS
> at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
