RE: [ubl] Re: UBL Beta -> 1.0 schema approach

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Tim,

In November we reached agreement that we would allow UBL 1.0 Beta to be based on the September checklist, but that the final 1.0 would be based on the rules as they stood at the end of the SF meeting.  Any comparison to the September rules is outdated.

Mark 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:37 AM
> To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ubl] Re: UBL Beta -> 1.0 schema approach
> 
> 
> At the plenary yesterday it was discussed about the Sept17th NDR 
> checklist and how much 1.0-beta and hence 1.0 production is 
> away from these.
> 
> I have tried to apply my comments from Draft L of the NDR document to 
> the Sept 17th checklist and came up with the following.
> [NB bear in mind my original comments were based on the document 
> descriptions not just the rules and this cross-reference may not have 
> captured all issues]
> 
>  From Sept17th NDR checklist [NOT including any rules marked "NEW"]...
> 
> GXS1 (sept 17th) is now GXS2 (Draft L) - we have never done this and 
> still dont. I seem to remember some discussion about how stylesheets 
> could strip these out anyway.
> MDC1, MDC2,MDC3, MDC4 - are all out of scope - they are modeling 
> guidelines not mandatory XML rules.  i do believe we practice most of 
> them.  the only one that is problematic for 1.0 is MDC3 which is 
> unenforcable anyway.
> GNR5 and GNR6  - are wrong according to UBL agreement in May 2003 (my 
> comment marked NDR50)
> ELN2 - does not  agree with current practice in 1.0-Beta (my comment 
> marked NDR57)
> ELN3 and ELN4 - were part of  a discussion with Mike Grimley 
> and I think 
> there are plans to change this - currently it is ambiguous 
> but i think 
> 1.0-Beta does not comply with it as written in the 
> checklist.(my comment 
> marked NDR57)
> ATN1 - the CCT schemas do not comply with this rule.(my 
> comment marked 
> NDR60)
> CTN2 - we dont do this and it is the basis of many follow on 
> rules (my 
> comment marked NDR55)
> NB. The Schema Structure rules (SSM1-15) have been 
> re-numbered in draft 
> L so it is hard to reference them. but SSM4 (in draft L) was SSM8 (on 
> Sept 17th) and relates to my issue NDR36 - i suspect the CCT schemas 
> dont comply with this.
> RED2  - this is not an enforcable rule nor is it an NDR 
> (similar to MDC 
> rules above) - i am also not sure we can claim compliance 
> with 1.0-Beta 
> (my comment marked NDR84)
> DOC1- we dont comply (my comment marked NDR40)
> DOC2 - (sept 17th) has disappeared. this is OK, it related to 
> code list 
> supplementary components - which has been superceded by CLSC (but i 
> guess it means we dont comply with it)
> CDL2, CDL3, CDL4  and CDL8 - are LC issues for dealing with 
> code lists 
> and hence out of scope (my comment marked NDR 77 and NDR 79). 
>  it does 
> not address the stock,standard placebo concept and so i 
> suspect we will 
> not complywhen we come to implement CLSCs architecture.
> CDL5 - i now realize this is also not an NDR issue and not practical 
> either - we may want to not enumerate code list values. (e.g. 
> UN/LOCODE 
> has more than 38,000 entries and may be used several times in 
> a document)
> ELD1 (sept 17th) is now EDL2 (Draft L) -  I dont think we 
> comply to this 
> and dont think we should (my comment marked NDR28)
> ELD2 (sept 17th) is now ELD1 (Draft L) - out of scope for NDR 
> and i dont 
> think we comply (my comment marked NDR21)
> ELD3 - needs rewording to fit UBL terminology(my comment marked NDR68)
> ELD4 - needs rewording to fit UBL terminology(my comment marked NDR70)
> ELD6 (first one) - should be confirmed with CLSC (my comment 
> marked NDR73)
> NB the checklist has two rules marked ELD6
> ATD1 - may prohibit us using qualified data types and code lists (my 
> comment marked NDR74)
> ATD6 - needs clarification we may not comply (my comment marked NDR75)
> CTD1- needs rewording to fit UBL terminology(my comment marked NDR68)
> CTD5, CTD6, CTD7 and CTD8 - are follow on from CTN2 and we are not 
> compliant (my comment marked NDR64)
> CTD16 - appears to have been dropped from Draft L except it still 
> appears in the Appendix (table A12). no explanation is 
> available but i 
> dont think we comply for the same reason as CCT element names 
> do not use 
> Dictionary Entry Names.
> IND5 and IND6 - i dont think instance rules are in scope for 
> NDR. they 
> are either part of implementation 'best practice' recommendations or 
> they are not necessary, and certainly cannot be mandated.  
> but as this 
> has no bearing on 1.0 compliance we can ignore them for now.
> 
> I hope this helps us keep on track for "what we need to do to 
> have a 1.0 
> release with matching NDRs".
> 
> -- 
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228  
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/members/leave_workgroup.php.