Re: [ubl-lcsc] Packaging team call

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

unfortunately, i cannot make this call but it would like to make sure a 
few items get onto the agenda (i am sure they will anyway, but i want to 
add my little bit).

a. the pros and cons of  substitution/abstract (are these the same 
thing?) is a side issue.  the time for debate is past - we should adopt 
marty's architecture as is.  it is the only practical option we have 
(and i personaly think it is an elegant one).  the fact there is a NDR 
against this means the NDR needs re-examining not the code list 
representation.  i thought that is what we had said since washington. 
 code list will drive NDRs.

b. it now appears from the code list representation mechanism means we 
have nothing to put in our 'specialised data types' schema.  i think 
this is OK and in the spirit of the CCTS.  the question is whether we 
should still have a placeholder/null SDT schema (a bit like we did in 
1.0-Beta) or just drop it.  this means we need to make adjustments to 
the schema modularity diagram (which we have to anyway as we have 
dropped the CLUDT schema).  again, i see no issue with doing this.  this 
modularity suggested in this diagram is an NDR in progress. as we 
develop and implement the code list representation we should be able to 
improve/simplify it. (see attached possibility)
perhaps we can satisfy everyone by naming the Code Lists Schemas 
something like UBL-SpecialisedDatatype-CurrencyCode-Use-1.0-draft-8.xsd 
 to indicate their role as SDT definitions.

c. can i ask if the CLSC made any decision on the source format for 
Code.Content and Code.Name (anne's data capture task)? given the syntax 
of the code list representation, it may be simpler just to hand code 
these directly in the final syntax (ie as enumerations) rather than mock 
up our own syntax (that i made up), then load this into EDIFIX and have 
it generate the enumerations.  i am willing to do some editing if necessary.

d. we are very close, but still lacking an end-to-end example of code 
list usage.  having made decision about the above and before we get 
GEFEG cutting code it may be a good idea for Stephen to apply this to 
his sample documents (or a fragment of them) and demonstrate from model 
to instance using a standard code and a non-standard (as a comparison).

jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>I suggest that we use some of the Packaging Team meeting (Friday
>12 March at 8 a.m. California time) to discuss schema coordination
>as well.
>
>Jon
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160