[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: Re: catching up in sydney
CIQ TC, I met Tim McGrath of UBL in Sydney last week. He had some comments for CIQ. I am keen to move forward to ensure that the CIQ specs. conform to the ebXML CC requirements. Any volunteers from the TC to give a go at this one? Let me know. I will also look into it. Regards, Ram ---------- Forwarded Message ----------- From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> To: Ram Kumar <rkumar@msi.com.au> Sent: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 12:19:25 +0800 Subject: Re: catching up in sydney with respect to CIQ, you should be able to see from our 1.0 Beta release that we have adopted xNAL terms for our property terms wthin our Address object class where possible. Where we could not we have provided maps or references to the xNAL structures in our business terms. The places we could not simply 'use xNAL' were: * were it uses attributes for qualifying property terms - e.g. Thoroughfare ->qualified as Street. this is not permitted by the UBL naming and Design Rules which states that all properties are elements. * were the terms break the naming rules of the ebXML core component technical spec (e.g. PostalCodeNumber is not a number). This states that properties must be named Objectclass. Propertyterm. Respresentationterm. As we discussed it would be valuable to UBL if xNAL could be based on both ebXML core components types (e.g. uses defintions from the same CoreComponentTypes.xsd that both UBL and new OAG projects are using.) and also adopted some of the UBL naming and Design Rules for the its use of schema componentary. perhaps you could get a few members interested in taking a small subset of your vocabulary and trying this out?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]