RE: [codelist] Proposed Conformance Clause for genericode 1.0 specification

["Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>]

Hi Ken,

  I think what you propose is perfectly acceptable if it is acceptable to the TC. And no, you do not need to put a
version number in the schema file name; we will automatically store a version-specific copy in the appropriate
docs.oasis-open.org directory.

Hope to see you in Montreal in a couple of weeks!

Mary 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: Code List Representation TC
> Subject: [codelist] Proposed Conformance Clause for 
> genericode 1.0 specification
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I'm struggling with how much to put (or not to put) into a 
> conformance clause for genericode.
> 
> We certainly do not want to restrict *how* or *where* 
> genericode is being used.  For example, I've posted in the 
> UBL group a distillation of the International Data Dictionary 
> spreadsheets as a number of genericode files.  This makes the 
> information in these spreadsheets available as an XML 
> resource for application developers to read and load up their 
> application structures with language-based definitions 
> suitable for pop-ups or help information.  The main post is here:
> 
>    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200707/msg00027.html
> 
> And there has been some discussion on UBL-Dev about things 
> like column names:
> 
>    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200707/msg00006.html
> 
> I chose genericode because it can be used as a 
> general-purpose keyed-table (used for data representation), 
> unlike other table structures such as CALS tables (used for 
> data presentation) that differ.  Interestingly, my current 
> thoughts on this are to use <ComplexValue> elements and 
> xml:lang= for content distinction.
> 
> But it illustrates my point about conformance:  this data 
> structure isn't being used as a (traditional?) code list, and 
> I wouldn't want a conformance statement to prevent it from 
> being used any way I need.
> 
> I think we should rename the XSD file from CodeList.xsd to 
> genericode.xsd and use the following simple statement of 
> conformance as section 5 of the specification.  The current 
> use of ID attributes in the document model ensures the 
> uniqueness constraint of column identifiers and column 
> references is checked, so I removed a sentence I originally 
> had that indicated those aspects of uniqueness ... why 
> mention it if it is already covered by the first sentence?
> 
> Please let me know what you think about the text below.
> 
> In particular, Mary, would such an abbreviated definition of 
> conformance be acceptable to OASIS if it is acceptable to the 
> CLRTC?  Second, do the OASIS naming guidelines compel us to 
> incorporate a version number in the main XSD file such as 
> genericode-1.0.xsd (I don't see any need for a version number 
> in the utility xml.xsd fragment)?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> . . . . . . . . . . Ken
> 
> Conformance
> 
>     An XML instance is considered to be conforming to the
>     OASIS code list representation genericode document model
>     if it does not violate any constraints expressed in the
>     genericode.xsd and xml.xsd schema expressions associated
>     with this version of the specification.
> 
> 
> --
> Upcoming public training: XSLT/XSL-FO Sep 10, UBL/code lists 
> Oct 1 World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and 
> UBL training
> RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
> G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
> Male Cancer Awareness Jul'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
> Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
>