[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] MINUTES: Joint NDR/LCCSC 4 Feb 2003
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC