Re: [ubl] UBL schema tests draft-8.2 - Core Component Parameters

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

I have an item for discussion at the co-ordination meeting....Core Component
Parameters

Someone has to take ownership of the schema called UBL-CoreComponentParameters-1.0-draft-8.2.xsd.
 It appears to be out of date and define more than we use.  i think it supposed
to define the metadata for each BBIE or CCT/DT.  so it would be better if
it took these names from the models themselves to make sure we stayed in
synch.  For example what we call 'BIE Type' in the models appears as 'Category
Code' in the schema  ('category' is a term the CCTS uses a lot for context
- so it may confuse someone to see it here).  What we call 'BIE Dictionary
Entry Name' is 'DictionaryEntryName'

Also, we are currently not consistent in presenting these, for example the
schema "UBL-CoreComponentTypes-1.0-draft-8.2.xsd" has...
            <ccts:Component>
                    <ccts:CategoryCode>CCT</ccts:CategoryCode>
                    <ccts:DictionaryEntryName>Amount. Type</ccts:DictionaryEntryName>
                    <ccts:Definition>A number of monetary units specified
in a currency where the unit of the currency is explicit or implied.</ccts:Definition>
                    <ccts:ObjectClass>Amount</ccts:ObjectClass>
                    <ccts:PropertyTerm>Type</ccts:PropertyTerm>
                </ccts:Component>
((uses ObjectClass and PropertyTerm))

 - and the schema "UBL-UnspecializedDatatypes-1.0-draft-8.2.xsd" has...
       <ccts:Component>
          <ccts:CategoryCode>DT</ccts:CategoryCode>
          <ccts:DictionaryEntryName>Amount. Type</ccts:DictionaryEntryName>
          <ccts:Definition>A number of monetary units specified in
a currency where the unit of the currency is explicit or implied.</ccts:Definition>
          <ccts:RepresentationTerm>Amount</ccts:RepresentationTerm>
        </ccts:Component>
((uses RepresentationTerm))

- and these have similar follow through in the other schemas.

I propose we say that the model column headings are the definitive terms
used and that this trickle down into the NDR rule that defines these as well.
 if we keep 3 separate defintions we will always be encountering this kind
of mis-alignment.  i suggest this is worth the effort, even if this means
issuing draft 9 of the models to revise the column headings.  Based on the
current scenario, my candidate list is...

DictionaryEntryName
ObjectClassQualifier
ObjectClass
PropertyTermQualifier
PropertyTermPossessiveNoun
PropertyTermPrimaryNoun
RepresentationTerm
AssociatedObjectClassQualifier
AssociatedObjectClass
AlternativeBusinessTerms
Occurrence
ComponentType
Definition
Examples

Furthermore, we should specify every legitimate value for this metadata -
an element should appear if it has a value in the model (and not if it doesn't).

David Kruppke wrote:

Hello all,

this is version draft-8.2.

It improves version 8.1 through containing the codes Anne sent to the ubl
list, but there are not any annotation-documentation for the code values.

I need a decision how the documentation for codes should look like.


Thanks in advance


David
  

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.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160