RE: [ubl] Draft 2.0 Schemas with Currency Codes edited to unions

[Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>]

Actually, that behavior would be expected. I had pointed out previously that if it is union of an Enumeration and a Normalized
String, then you no longer have the benefit of validation of the enumeration. Marty acknowledged this and no one had any objection.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, 07 December 2005 0958
To: Burnsmarty@aol.com; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft 2.0 Schemas with Currency Codes edited to unions

Marty

There might be a problem as I rather suspected

The following should not be valid, according to business requirements:

<cac:Payment>
<cbc:ID schemeID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyName="XXXXXXXXXX"
schemeVersionID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeDataURI="Y" schemeURI="Y">XXXXXXXXXX</cbc:ID> <cbc:PaidAmount currencyID="A">23</cbc:PaidAmount>
<cbc:ReceivedDate>2002-07-01</cbc:ReceivedDate>
<cbc:PaidDateTime>2002-07-01T05:10:10</cbc:PaidDateTime>
<cbc:ExpectedReceiptDateTime>2002-07-01T05:10:10</cbc:ExpectedReceiptDateTime>
<cbc:InstructionID schemeID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyName="XXXXXXXXXX"
schemeVersionID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeDataURI="Y" schemeURI="Y">XXXXXXXXXX</cbc:InstructionID>
</cac:Payment>

It has <cbc:PaidAmount currencyID="A">23</cbc:PaidAmount> with an invalid currencyID "A" 
but it is treated as valid (in XML Spy 2006 at least).

This should be verified as I was only able to use the Home Edition.


All the best

Steve

>>> <Burnsmarty@aol.com> 07/12/05 12:50:14 >>>
All,
 
As requested I have taken the draft 2.0 schemas and modified them minimally to change the underlying type of currency code to a
union of token and a list that is a restriction of token.
 
A couple of notes:
 
1) The order instance in the set did not quite match the schemas in the zip file. The attached has an example generated from xml spy
based on the draft schemas.
 
2) I did not quite get why there are two code list schemas referenced in  the schema set. One with codes and one without. So I
modified both.
 
3) I did not flesh out the entire currency code list schemas according to the template. However, the main difference is the
incorporation of "fixed"  
attribute definitions for supplementary components that allow instance documents to have these values as originally required. I
assumed that this part of the template was not controversial so I made the minimal changes on the union discussion to make it easy
to see the small modifications required.
 
I am not sure I can make the Atlantic call today, so please email with comments/questions.
 
Cheers,
Marty


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

smime.p7s