[ubl-lcsc] RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Question: qualified element names intop-level me ssage defs

["Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>]

(including lcsc)

Great catch Dave.  It appears that yesterday's fix that worked to on the
"reusable" schema did not have a similar effect on the "domain/document"
schemas.  I had a look at the Order schema and it suffers the same "last
Friday" ills you cite for "DespatchAdvice".

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Carlson [mailto:dcarlson@ontogenics.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:32 PM
To: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org; gunther.stuhec@sap.com
Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Question: qualified element names in top-level message
defs


It seems strange, and a bit inconsistent, to have element names fully
qualifed with object class term in top-level defintions, but not in the
reusable types.

See the attached UML diagram (which is pruned to show less detail for this
illustration).

Why are all child element names of DespatchAdvice prefixed with
"DespatchAdvice"?

e.g. we have "DespatchAdviceIssueDate"
but in ReferencedOrder, we have simply "IssueDate"

This this the intended rule?

(Again, could someone copy this message to ubl-lcsc ?)

-- Dave