Spectral Data Model V2.0 working draft

[Doug Tody]

The XML namespace usage has never actually worked and should be
replaced by some other mechanism (no harm leaving it in the doc as
a placeholder until we have this however).  I agree with Markus that
the DM actual namespace prefixes ("ssa", "spec", "sdm" etc.) should
be fixed, likewise the Utype path defined within the DM namespace
should be a fixed string for a given DM.  Defining the path to the DM
description within the Dataset submodel seems like a good solution.
My preference would be to add a new field for this so that the existing
Dataset.Datamodel remains simple.  This URL would point to the place
where we define the DM and all its metadata, help text, etc.

 	- Doug


On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Mark Cresitello-Dittmar wrote:

> On 10/17/2012 08:15 AM, Omar Laurino wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  I agree with Markus. This escaped our internal review, but should be
>>  easily fixed. I don't think I agree that we shouldn't use the term
>>  namespace, but that's a utypes issue. For what the DM serialization is
>>  concerned, the utypes syntax doesn't have anything to do with the XML
>>  namespaces notation (true even if utypes were not fixed strings).
>>
>>  Cheers,
>> 
>
> I tend to agree as well..  much of that is just carried from the earlier 
> models.
> I do think there is interest and benefit in providing a place for the XSD. 
> It would
> have to be in the topmost level uber-generic objects.. so putting it 
> alongside/with
> the Dataset.Datamodel  attribute makes sense.
>
> As for using the term 'namespace', I don't have a problem with the term 
> (obviously),
> but also would be OK switching to something like 'model prefix'.. or 
> whatever.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>