[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] NDR Review - Section 7.7
I have yet to see a use case for the inclusion of choice. In the cases where I have seen arguments for the use of choice, the data is really more properly part of either a code list or identification scheme. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:Eve.Maler@Sun.COM] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM > To: UBL-NDRSC (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] NDR Review - Section 7.7 > > > Hi folks-- I bet you thought I had fallen off the edge of the earth, > huh? I hope you're all well, and I wish you a happy 2004. > > I wasn't going to comment on this issue, but Mike's message has > emboldened me. As he points out, it poses no particular > problems that a > maxOccurs greater than 1 doesn't already have, so at the least, the > rationale shouldn't be as stated below. > > But beyond that, I think it's a little weird to actually > forbid choice > groups. It feels a little like "All that is not mandatory is > forbidden". It's certainly going to be more rare in business > documents > than in prose documents; perhaps a need for it will pop up in > catalogs, > which are a hybrid?... I believe the main reason UBL doesn't > have *any* > choice groups to date is that its chosen methodology and spreadsheet > encoding have no way to accommodate it. But I can certainly imagine > ways for them to do so, if the need arose. > > Eve > > Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > I know we are not currently going to reconsider decisions > already made; however, we do have to change the explanatory > text around the xsd:choice rule (Section 7.7 - GXS9). It > currently reads: > > > > ================================================== > > The xsd:choice compositor allows for any element declared > inside it to occur in the > > instance document, but only one. As with the xsd:all > compositor, this feature is > > inconsistent with business transaction exchanges and is not > allowed in UBL. > > ================================================== > > > > I don't think this is true. As I had mentioned on > yesterday's call, because an xsd:choice element can be > contained within an xsd:sequence, it leads to no more > uncertainty/variability in an instance than a "minOccurs='0'" > does; therefore, I don't believe it is "inconsistent with > business transaction exchanges". > > > > Comments? > > > > Thank You, > > Mike Grimley > > -- > Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 > Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 > Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com > > > 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-ndrsc/members /leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]