Re: [ubl-dev] Aggregate components: XML complexType and type= vs.ref=

["Michael Strasser" <Michael.Strasser@brisbane.qld.gov.au>]

Jon

 

 

Thanks for the information. I missed the subtleties of the UBL NDR because I have only read the Checklist version.

 

I am studying the UN/CEFACT NDR in more detail to understand them better and to see if they explicitly mandate the use of ‘type=’. UN/CEFACT schemas use it, for example:

 

http://www.unece.org/uncefact/data/standard/AccountingEntry_2p0.xsd

 

I look forward to seeing a draft new NDR.

 

 

Michael Strasser

Brisbane, Australia

>>> Jon Bosak <bosak@pinax.com> 20/10/2009 22:11:17 >>>

Short answers:

Michael Strasser wrote:
> Can someone please explain the decision-making process for UBL

If you literally mean the OASIS technical committee process, see

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php

If you mean the thinking that went into the UBL design, that's
documented in mind-numbing detail in the TC archives starting
around the beginning of 2002:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/

> and how it was decided to apparently contradict the UN/CEFACT
> rules?

The UN/CEFACT rules came after the UBL rules.  So you will have to
ask UN/CEFACT why they chose a different design.

> Or are the "rules" not so clear-cut? I have read the UBL 2.0 NDR
> and I am even more confused (i.e. doesn't [RED2] contradict
> [ELD3]?)!

No, it doesn't.  ELD3 applies to all of the elements, whereas by
RED2 only the document ABIE is in the document schema and all the
others are in the common library.

BTW, the UBL NDR editors have just finished up two years of
polishing the NDR document and will be submitting it for a second
public review shortly.  I'll make sure that a notice gets posted
here when it's available for review.

Jon

---

This message has passed through an insecure network.
Please direct all enquiries to the message author.

---