Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Recursive container?

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Do you mean "no" to the situation:

<UBLContainer>
    <UBLContainer>
        <A> ... </A>
    </UBLContainer>
    <UBLContainer>
        <A> ... </A>
    </UBLContainer>
    <UBLContainer>
        <A> ... </A>
    </UBLContainer>
</UBLContainer>

This wouldn't be what I meant.  Let me try again.

Let's look at BuyerPartyType.
Here, we have from 0p70 Reusable schema:

<BuyerPartyType>
    <ID> <!-- 1..1 --> </ID>
    <AccountCode> <!-- 0..1 --> </AccountCode>
    <PartyName> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyName>
    <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
    <PartyTaxScheme> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyTaxScheme>
    <BuyerContact> <!-- 0..1 --> </BuyerContact>
</BuyerPartyType>


Focusing just on PartyName and Address, we can have an instance
having containers:

<BuyerPartyType>
    <UBLContainer>
        <PartyName> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyName>
        <PartyName> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyName>
    </UBLContainer>
    <UBLContainer>
        <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
        <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
        <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
    </UBLContainer>
</BuyerPartyType>


So question is whether <UBLContainer> should now be applied
over the adjoining <UBLContainer>s so that it then looks:

<BuyerPartyType>
    <UBLContainer>
        <UBLContainer>
            <PartyName> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyName>
            <PartyName> <!-- 0..n --> </PartyName>
        </UBLContainer>
        <UBLContainer>
            <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
            <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
            <Address> <!-- 0..n --> </Address>
        </UBLContainer>
    </UBLContainer>
</BuyerPartyType>


There could be arguments supporting "yes" or "no" answers, but
either way, I think it might improve clarity of container's 
applicable depth extent by stating it explicitly (ie. whether
it is 1-deep only, or recursively applicable).

Thanks.



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

>>It was actually clear the first time ;)
>>
>>I believe the answer is "no".
>>
>><UBLContainer> is a shortcut, not a real name. You won't have
>>successsive containers of the same name or type, so it wouldn't
>>qualify, would it?