[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Quick NDR comments on the 0pt65 work
Hi LC folks-- The NDR group met today and spent some time reviewing the internal 0pt65 draft of the schemas that Gunther made available. We noted some issues as we went. In the hope that these can be considered/addressed before your August 16 deadline, we include them here. (They also appeared in our meeting minutes from today.) Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss further with the NDR group. Thanks! Eve * * * In reviewing the 0pt65 XSD draft just sent out by Gunther, we noticed the following issues. - Wrapper for LineItem*: Between 0pt64 and 0pt65, we noticed that the Details element that had wrapped the series of LineItem elements had disappeared, and learned that this was because all the parts of the element's name (Order, Details, etc.) needed to vanish according to our naming/truncation rules. It was not our intent for the naming rules to have substantive effect on choices of whether elements should exist! :-) We recommend that a wrapper element be added back. There are a number of ways this could be done, intersecting with our existing recommendations in various ways. * One way is to simply pick a different property term and qualifier for this one wrapper element, keeping in mind how the naming rules get applied to ensure that the element name doesn't get "zeroed out." (This smacks a bit of gaming the system.) * Another way is to consider how to handle the NDR Containership paper's recommendation to always add intermediate containers around series of like elements (such as LineItem*), and apply it -- whatever it is -- to this situation. Given the initial feedback we've received on this paper, this would probably mean adding back a row for not only this instance but other cases of element-series. It would also probably mean applying a naming rule in all cases that doesn't really exist yet: Should the element name net out to LineItemList? LineItemSeries? LineItemSet? and how would this work with our tripartite naming scheme? and do we want to reflect the significance of series ordering in this rule (e.g., set vs. list)? As a reminder, the motivations for having wrapper elements around element-series are that (a) it gives a place to hang metadata and extensions that apply only to those elements and not their other siblings, and (b) it makes certain obvious kinds of processing easier and more natural (e.g., applying processing to all children and grabbing the first and last elements). - ID/identifier naming The automatic application of the naming/truncation rules related to the Identifier representation term almost work, but there are inconsistencies. First, the truncation should be from Identifier to "ID", not "Id". Second, in many caes the truncation doesn't seem to have been applied at all. An analysis is needed to determine whether the spreadsheet formula is at fault, or whether particular column fields need adjustment. (It appears that all cases of elements called merely "Identifier", with no prefix, are uniformly not shortened. - No top-level elements In contrast to 0pt64, the draft of 0pt65 seems to be missing declarations for top-level elements for Order etc. -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 883 5917 XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC