[ubl-lcsc] One more rev? (was: qualified element names in top-levelmessage defs)

[Dave Carlson <dcarlson@ontogenics.com>]

(I am now on the lcsc list)

I've produced UML diagrams for the core components and reusable types, but am
holding off on the top-level diagrams.  Gunther, are you on an airplane right
now?  Do we plan one more rev to remove object class qualifications on the root
document type content?  Presumably this ripples through to stylesheet creation
and generation of sample instances.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Burcham, Bill" <Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com>
To: "'Dave Carlson'" <dcarlson@ontogenics.com>;
<ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org>; <gunther.stuhec@sap.com>;
<ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <jon.bosak@sun.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Question: qualified element names in top-level message
defs


> (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
>
>