OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: PRD2 ISS-23: Abbreviating Dictionary Entry Names for ASBIEs.


To address this issue we need to make an agreement about how to interpret rules D10 and C28 in the CCTS.  Currently the way we do this in our spreadsheets does not follow that of the schema generator and hence the discrepencies flagged by Roberto.

The CCTS has two rules about redundant words, that state:

[B19] The Dictionary Entry Name shall be concise and shall not contain consecutive
redundant words.
and
[B29] For Basic and Association Business Information Entities, if the Property Term is
equal to the third component of the Dictionary Entry Name, and the Property
Term is not qualified, the Property Term shall be removed from the Dictionary
Entry Name.
The issue arises when we have a qualified property term, can we remove redundant words or not?

Example:
Object Class = Catalogue Line
Property Term Qualifier = Contractor
Property Term = Customer Party
Representation term = Customer Party

Full Dictionary Entry Name is...
Catalogue Line. Contractor_ Customer Party. Customer Party

Following rule B29 the EDIFIX  generator (and hence our schemas) gives no truncation, ie....
Catalogue Line. Contractor_ Customer Party. Customer Party

Whereas in our spreadsheets we have...
Catalogue Line. Contractor_ Customer Party
(The redundant words in the Representation Term ("Customer Party") are removed)

Case for current spreadsheet interpretation
Reflects the ISO 11179 statement that ... "Often, the representation term may be redundant with part of the property term. When this occurs, one term or part of one term may be eliminated in a structured name." Rule B19 can be applied to implement this principle.  This implies Rule B19 has precedence over Rule B29.

Case for current EDIFIX generator interpretation
Implies Rule B29 has precedence over Rule B19.  There is no redundancy when a qualifier is used.

Personally I am ambivalent and suspect the significant issues are the effort required to change to either method.  It may be the line of least resistence to follow the EDIFIX approach and modify the spreadsheets to match.  Perhaps someone could automate this conversion?

As a footnote (although we should not put too much weight on this as yet),  the draft new version of CCTS drops rule B29 altogether.
---
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]