[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Incorporated definitions for UBL 2.1 review
At 2013-01-07 20:06 -0500, Andrew M Schoka wrote:
From a samping of the incorpsrated definitions, Regarding TSC definitions, it appears the those rows having a ? in row d, new definition, did not get the revised Defintion proposed by reviewer provide in column J. It did pick up other entries in col J correctly.
Thank you for catching that, Andy ... I missed it. So many of the rows were comprised of only a question mark in column D that I simply filtered those out without realizing that there was viable information in column J.
Let's try again with the definitions found at these links: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47833/#Summary ... or for PSC models only here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47835/#Summary ... or for TSC models only here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47834/#Summary Thank you, again! I'm glad these artefacts are getting looked at in detail.(Note that I have preserved below the issue regarding checking the integrity of the definition files)
. . . . . . . . . . Ken At 2013-01-07 18:02 -0500, I wrote:
As for the subcommittee oversight, check this out: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47829/#t-CommonLibrary-781 Definition: "New definition is OK"At 2012-12-19 11:14 -0500, I wrote:UBL 2.1 PRD3 DEFINITION REVIEW Status of PSC definition review Proposed definitions are posted: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-psc/201212/msg00001.html Peter - would members please review column J of new definitions for the proper use of English and grammar? Status of TSC definition review Proposed definitions are posted: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-tsc/201212/msg00011.htmlLooking at the PSC definition file, row 771 does, indeed, have "New definition is OK" in column "J" as the new definition.I cannot programmatically check for incorrectly written new definitions, thus my process is incorporating column "J" as the process was defined by Jon. When "J" is empty I use "D", unless it is empty, in which case the original definition is unchanged (though it is confirmed as not having been changed in the database).I do not have the time to produce all these artefacts and check that subcommittee submissions follow the guidelines.I ask that PSC review their definitions file and resubmit it when it has been checked. Although I haven't come across any problems with the TSC definitions, it might help just to do a quick review, please, for any problems that may lie hidden there.
-- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]