[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
The first child element of very document element of the 81 document types in UBL 2.2 is <ext:UBLExtensions>. This element can have any number of <ext:UBLExtension> elements with metadata about an extension, as well as the extension content point. Under the content point is a single ##other as the apex of an XML extension in no namespace or a foreign non-UBL namespace. Our "why" reason is two-fold: - there are XML vocabularies under other established governance that are useful to UBL users and there needs to be a home for users to add them to UBL without triggering a UBL schema violation (e.g. W3C DigSig, and someone contacted me about a W3C structure I didn't recognize but they wanted to include in their invoice) ... it makes no sense to try and mimic established foreign vocabularies using UBL document constructs because their governance will trigger changes that won't be kept up in UBL's mimic. - the committee's application of Pareto's 80/20 principle assumes 20% of UBL meets 80% of business requirements, the other 80% of UBL meets most of the more obscure business requirements but most people won't need them (so subsetting UBL is important), but that still doesn't guarantee that, for example, our definition of a purchase order line item isn't missing something important to some user community and so that user community can add that into their extension ... the goal being that UBL can be used by *all* communities because *all* of their requirements can find a home in the UBL structures. The UBL committee has always felt that it would never be perfect in designing a one-document-model-for-everyone, and so took this approach to at least design a one-schema-expression-for-everyone. And UBL acceptance is growing all the time. I've proposed a prepared paper all about this for the Balisage symposium this year and if my proposal is accepted I'll talk more about this in Baltimore. The symposium makes reference to "vocabulary ecosystems": http://www.balisage.net/VocabEco/index.html So ... user communities within an ecosystem establish their interchange requirements that may require joint agreement on the use of extensions, and so the schemas should accommodate extensions to let them do that. But if something comes into the ecosystem from outside, but still conforms to the base that all communities are using, there should still be enough information in that to "get paid" or whatever else is happening in the essence of the interchange. I hope this is helpful. . . . . . . Ken At 2018-04-20 16:59 +0000, Costello, Roger L. wrote: Hi Folks, -- Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ | Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources | Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|