Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-ssc] question on open alignment issues

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Maybe this is a good time to remind of
Chee-Kai's list of 'inconsistencies' which may
need consideration at this stage (or soon).

lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200409/msg00056.html

All the best

Steve

>>> Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com> 12/01/04 20:43 PM >>>
Hi Sylvia,

Yes, this email was referring to the 1.0 issues list.  I went back and 
looked at the last version of the issues list (published with the OASIS 
spec - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200409/msg00035.html ) 
and the disposition was to change the order in the schemas (not the 
ss).  It notes that this was done, as per David, on 22 July, becuase it 
was in Stephen's 'to fix in schemas' list that he sent to David.  That 
list is attached.  So I can't quite tell - are you saying now that 
number b.1 was not done?  In looking at the schemas I see that the Code 
attrs are in ccts table 8-1 order, but I do see that one of the attrs 
for Identifier is not in ccts talble 8-1 order.

It would be good to clarify the current state of the schemas w.r.t. this 
issue, because I think at the last F2F Tim agreed to chaange the order 
of the attrs in the ss, so if he does make that change and the schemas 
are not in sync, then this is for naught (and I'm not sure, based on 
logic and Mark's comment that this is a path we want to go down anyway).

I brought up the question because I noted that in Michael's original 
issue submission he only talked about these two types, but in further 
investigation I found nother that was not in ccts table 8-1 order (as 
noted in my original email below), so now I'm really wondering what 
we're doing.  I'd like to clarify this by asking the following 
questions, which can probably only be answered by Michael, David, and/or 
Stephen, Mark, Tim:

1. For what reason would we want to strive to represent the schema 
attributes in an order similar to CCTS 2.01?
2. For what reason would we want to strive to represent the ss 
attributes in an order similar to the schems, or to CCTS 2.01?
3. When you say, Michael, they are not as in CCTS 2.01, are you talking 
about  CCTS 2.01 table 8-1?  Because in CCTS 2.01 table 8-2, which lists 
all the ccts approved components, they are in a different order.
4. If we are to agree (again) that this is important (at least for the 
schemas), who will volunteer to look at *all* of these types again in 
the current schemas and make sure we are compliant with this request 
(because obviously the first list submitted with the issue was incomplete)?
5. Do we need a rule for this?

I'm hoping that issue related to maintaining some order relative to CCTS 
as the spec moves forward will be addressed in the discussion of answers 
to questions 1 and 2.

Let's try to get this nailed down now so we don't have to revisit.  
Since this was originally Michael's issue, perhaps he can answer the 
first couple of questions (sorry if this is a request for info already 
given originally, but I don't think the main reasoning has been 
adequately captured or conveyed - it's not in the issues list at least, 
which just notes a difference, but not why this is a problem).

I'm cc-ing the main ubl list because this involves more than just ssc.

-A

Sylvia Webb wrote:

>Anne,
>
>I'm copying a email message from Michael about this issue.  It appears that
>this may have been approved but it was not clear therefore we did not make
>the change.
>
>Start of Michael's original email:
>"Anne, please help:
>do you have any clu, why issue 1. ode CCT is in '10_Completed' of issue
>list 1.0 and issue 2 Identifier CCT is in '10_PendingAction'?
>Does this mean, you're waiting for the feedback 'It's implemented'?
>btw the action as of todays issue list 1.0 is 'Fix in schemas.' But it has
>be to fixed in the spreadsheets and data model as well.
>
>thanks,
>Michael
>
>-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Juni 2004 13:27
>An: 'ubl@lists.oasis-open.org'
>Cc: David Kruppke (E-Mail)
>Betreff: two CCT issues to be added to the issue list in order to become
>CCTS compliant
>
>
>Anne,
>please add the following two issues to the famous issue list.
>There are differences between the CCT as of CCTS and the CCT as of published
>UBL, I think:
>
>1. Code CCT
>issue: different sequence of data
>as of UBL:
>Code. Content
>Code. Name. Text
>Code List. Identifier
>Code List. Agency. Identifier
>Code List. Agency Name. Text
>Code List. Name. Text
>Code List. Version. Identifier
>Code List. Uniform Resource. Identifier
>Code List Scheme. Uniform Resource. Identifier Language. Identifier
>
>as of CCTS 2.01:
>Code. Content
>Code List. Identifier
>Code List. Agency. Identifier
>Code List. Agency Name. Text
>Code List. Name. Text
>Code List. Version. Identifier
>Code. Name. Text
>Language. Identifier
>Code List. Uniform Resource. Identifier
>Code List Scheme. Uniform Resource. Identifier
>
>reason: I don't now
>proposed solution: change the sequence as of CCTS 2.01
>
>2. Identifier CCT
>issue: different sequence of data
>as of UBL:
>Identifier. Content
>Identification Scheme. Identifier
>Identification Scheme. Agency. Identifier Identification Scheme. Version.
>Identifier Identification Scheme. Uniform Resource. Identifier
>Identification Scheme. Agency Name. Text Identification Scheme. Name. Text
>Identification Scheme Data. Uniform Resource. Identifier
>
>as of CCTS 2.01:
>Identifier. Content
>Identification Scheme. Identifier
>Identification Schme. Name. Text
>Identification Scheme. Agency. Identifier Identification Scheme. Agency
>Name. Text Identification Scheme. Version. Identifier Identification Scheme.
>Uniform Resource. Identifier Identification Scheme Data. Uniform Resource.
>Identifier
>
>reason: I don't now
>proposed solution: change the sequence as of CCTS 2.01
>
>There is no dangerous impact on schemas, because the sequence of attributes
>is not important for schemas. But it's an error and second this would cause
>problems, if somebody wants to see used versus not-used CCTypes.
>thanks,
>Michael
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne Hendry [mailto:anne.hendry@sun.com] 
>Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:29 PM
>To: tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au; dill2@gefeg.com;
>stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk; sylvia.webb
>Cc: ubl-ssc@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [ubl-ssc] question on open alignment issues
>
>Hi,
>
> From original F2F report, the UBL-CoreComponentTypes Issue #2 was:
>   The order of the supplementary components for "Code. Type" and
>   "Identifier. Type" should be aligned with the one used in the CCT
>    schema and in CCTS 2.01.
>
>But I am seeing that neither schema nor ss are in CCTS order for
>BinaryObjectType.
>Should this be on the list to be fixed as well?
>
>BTW, Mark's comment on this is that there is no normative order for
>attributes.
>So, I assume we are just doing this for the sake of simplifying the tools
>work.
>Is this right, or do you see some other reason for having them in the order
>shown in CCTS?
>
>Thanks,
>Anne
>
>
>   
>
>
>  
>