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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-lcsc message

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


Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Meeting Minutes


No Bill, i think you are on-base.  My recollection of this point was that Gunther had been away for this debate and had yet to catch up.  The second sentence is Gunther's comment not the current LCSC thinking.

Burcham, Bill wrote:
I don't understand this item from the LCSC minutes:
 
  • Containership: Issue is not solved, and we do not have rules for containership [Gunther Stuhec]. Naming and Design preferences - Suggested Item List containers be used if you have more than one item then you put it into the list. Position paper provided a resolution to that [Tim McGrath]. Stuhec will provide comments or concerns once re-reviewing the paper.
  •  
    Can someone please clarify what LCSC thinks the NDRSC "preference" is?
     
    From the NDRSC perspective I thought the big question was "to use 'extra' container elements, or not".  I thought the consensus we arrived at was represented in the final two paragraphs of this message (by Eve):  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200209/msg00028.html to wit:
     
    - The overhead of basic (syntactic) list containers seems not to be
       worth the extra power you get in customization.

    - We might find an occasional semantic ABIE that contains series of like
       elements (plus possibly an unlike thing or two), but it should rely
       on a regular analysis of functional dependencies.  This discussion
       has opened our eyes to this possibility, and suggests the various
       0..n and 1..n properties should be briefly re-examined for missing
       opportunities, but there's no need for wholesale changes.
     
    My understanding is that NDRSC believes that there is not sufficient motivation for our dictating 'extra' container elements (in the XML binding).   In other words the XML realization (done by The Perl Script) of the association from OrderHeader to LineItem is fine as it stands -- OrderHeader has an element with maxOccurs='unbounded' to represent the association.  I think NDRSC was suggesting that the name of the element might ought to be something like "LineItemList" (if it ain't already) -- but other than that, I think the _structure_ is fine.
     
    Am I off base?
     
    -Bill
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Lisa Seaburg [mailto:xmlgeek@gmi.net]
    Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 11:04 AM
    To: Ubl-Lcsc; Ubl-Comment
    Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Meeting Minutes

    The minutes from the teleconference meeting on 15 October, are now available at:
     
    http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/admindocs/minutes15oct02.html
     
    Please let me know if there are any corrections, changes, fixes.  Thank you.
     
    Lisa
     
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Lisa Seaburg
    AEON Consulting
    Website: http://shell.gmi.net/~xmlgeek/
    Email:  xmlgeek@gmi.net
    Alternative Email: xcblgeek@yahoo.com
    Phone: 662-562-7676
    Cellphone: 662-501-7676
     
    "Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk."
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    fremantle  western australia 6160
    phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 



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


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC