Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: Comments on combined message Spreadsheet

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

We did discuss on last week's call that any QA findings that affected the
capacity of the schemas to meet the 'scope' would mean another chnage to
the models.

I note your comment on clarifying the context of each document type's usage
and agree this is important.  We must also establish the final structure
of our spreadsheets.

let us discuss this on tuesday's call meanwhile if you have time to provide
a revised model (as you suggest) by then we can move to adopt it.

because we have many downstream tasks dependent on these models we must finalise
them at the meeting.

Michael Adcock wrote:
> As I thought I said in my cover e-mail, I feel strongly that the tabulated changes need to be made before distribution. They are the result of a QA check, and without them I believe the distribution material is devalued.
>
> I am ready and willing to make these changes. Apart from typos and cut&paste mistakes which are minor but appear careless if we do not correct them, they fall into three categories:-
>
> 1) Item identification where the definition is bad and misleading (5 places)
> 2) Some Identifiers where the formula in hidden column L was corrupted (4 places)
> 3) Loss of specialisation in re-use (13 areas, affecting more than one line)
>
> The third is the most significant, but I have done 95% of what is needed, as an experiment which can easily be slotted into the combined spreadsheet. I believe this is of absolutely vital importance, otherwise we will have completed side-stepped any 'context' whatsoever, and lose credibility! 
>
> I have also made some general comments that are intended for longer term consideration. Comment 1 reiterates the problem of losing specialisation, primarily to stress we can specialise more, and also that we need to consider other specialising factors such as cardinality and definitions (comment 2). 
> Comment 3 contains a question to which I want an answer, but does not affect distribution (unless Gunther needs the message spreadsheets updated in order to generate XSDs. Gunther, please comment?). Comments 4 and 5 are less urgent 'tidying up' things.
>
> My original attachments are included (1) the comments (2) the experiment in annotating with 'where used' re specialising re-used components.
>
> regards...
>
> Mike Adcock
> Standards & Security Unit
> APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
> Mercury House, Triton Court
> 14 Finsbury Square
> London EC2A 1LQ
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
> e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk
>
> > > > Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au> 05/01/03 23:15:56 >>>
> > > >       
> > >     
> >   
> Do you think these comments could form part of the review cycle for the 
> next release?
>
> PS please use the list for these exchanges.
>
> Michael Adcock wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have gone through the combined message spreadsheet, and noted a
> > number of problems. I believe these should be fixed before any
> > distribution. They are relatively small, I'm glad to say, although there
> > is one significant issue. That is the loss of 'specialisation' detail
> > when an ABIE is used in a limited way.
> >
> > As an experiment I have taken the combined spreadsheet and
> > experimentally added columns to note which messages use which bitsl
> > Without this, generating XSD from the Re-use spreadsheet would include
> > too much XSD!
> >
> > Thiis only the tip of the iceberg, as I think we also lose
> > opportunities to specialise definitions to say why we are using certain
> > things in certain places, and also any change in cardinalities. See my
> > general comments: I'd like us to think about this!
> >
> > Also needing thought is whether to maintain the separate message
> > spreadsheets.
> >
> > Attached are two files; my set of comments, and the experimentally
> > annotated 'used in message' version of the Re-Used Components
> > spreadsheet. The latter DOES NOT reflect any of ny proposed remedies re
> > comments! It would be good if Arofan (or anyone else) could comment on
> > whether this is what we see as 'business context'.
> >
> > 'bye for now...
> >
> > Mike Adcock
> > Standards & Security Unit
> > APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
> > Mercury House, Triton Court
> > 14 Finsbury Square
> > London EC2A 1LQ
> > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
> > Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
> > e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk 
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > The opinions expressed are those of the individual and not the company.
> >  Internet communications are not secure and therefore APACS does not  
> >     accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
> >  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
> > employee responsible for delivering this communication to the intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or
> >   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have
> > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> >          telephone to arrange for its return.  Thank you.
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> >  
> >
> >   

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