Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] MINUTES: Joint NDR/LCCSC 4 Feb 2003

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

To clarify what I suggested in the meeting:

I observe that some of the documentation is normative.  E.g.,
"This field represents a Social Security Number."

I observe that some of the (possible) documentation is not
normative.  For example, the UBL diagrams are not normative, so it
would be inappropriate to have links to those diagrams put in the
schemas.

So my proposal to LC is that we let LC decide what's normative and
what's not and to separate out the normative part into its own
column(s) on the spreadsheet so that this is the only part that
gets cooked into the schemas.  I have no opinion on what should be
considered normative from a business standpoint; I'm totally happy
to leave that judgement to the people working on the spreadsheets.

It was pointed out in the meeting that many implementers would
find it useful to have *all* the documentation right in the
schema.  This could include things we haven't even talked about
yet, like notes about module dependencies.  I stated my belief
that we can count on third parties (publishers) to provide the
"annotated UBL" and that this shouldn't be on the list of things
we should be committing ourselves to deliver.

Jon