[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Representation Term schema module
Hello Sue, Lisa and Garret, that's right that the code type does not have any attribute, because we decided that the supplementary components for describing the codelist and responsible agency will be represented by namespace tokens. The supplementary components "Code. Name. Text" and "Language. Identifier" are code specific. This supplementary components must be represented as annotation of each code. The "URI" supplementary components are not necessary, because we already defined a URN by using the code list and agency supplementary components. See in document "wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-V1pt0Draft1.pdf" from line 2236 to line 2263. Kind regards, Gunther -----Original Message----- From: Sue Probert [mailto:sue.probert@dial.pipex.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2004 00:56 To: Stuhec, Gunther; Garret Minakawa Cc: Lisa Seaburg Subject: Representation Term schema module Importance: High Hi Gunther and Garret During the lcsc call earlier today, Stephen Green raised a query relating to teh RT schema module. He said that codetype had no supplementary components. Lisa and I have looked at the beta schemas and there certainly does seem to be something odd. The identifier type has its correct full set of inherited attributes (supplementary components) but codetype does not. Lisa thought she noted a difference in the include namespace in these two cases (I think that's what she said but please excuse me if my terminology is wrong. I'm not at all an XML guru). This is an urgent plea for either or both of you to please respond on this so that when this is raised as a potential 1.0 show stopper on tomorrow's ndr call, we have an answer. Gunther, if you could possibly join the call tomorrow that would be very wonderful! best regards Sue and Lisa
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]