Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Switch Mike's message around a little:

At 12:40 PM 2/8/02 -0800, Mike Rawlins wrote:
>Of course, we can always do what X12 is about to do, and say that we're not
>going to set ourselves up as being dependent on the CC specs and catalog ;^)

Fascinating!  I didn't know that was allowed! :-)  I think the sense of the 
UBL TC at the second F2F was to maintain a relationship with the CC specs 
as much as possible, though.

>Gregory cites very good reasons for why new RTs might be needed, and I don't
>disagree with him.  However, I do still have reservations about the UBL TC
>inventing and using RTs without them being approved by the responsible CEFACT
>group, and just in the *hope* that they will be.  We're courting 
>divergence and
>a non-standard implementation if we go that route.   The foundation we're
>working with (in the form of the CC spec and catalogue) is shakey enough 
>already
>without deliberately doing something that is an extension of that work.

I hope Mark will contribute to this thread.  My understanding, taken 
directly from his speaking up on this issue in both the NDR SC meeting and 
the full-TC meeting, is that it's entirely respectable for a group doing a 
syntax binding of the CCs to need to build on the original specs, and as 
long as we're committed to (a) maintaining our own clear list of types, (b) 
feeding back our changes for consideration, and (c) attempting to map our 
types to the CC spec, that's the best we can do.

         Eve
--
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com