[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] ** Please Review UBL Model 1.0 draft 3 as a proposed final 1.0 model ** (sent earlier)
Greetings
Having pondered today the matter of an apparent
requirement or wish for a YearMonth DataType,
I've
come to the conclusion that there are too
many
issues for debate to meet the deadline for
1.0.
One issue for example is that, as I think Sue
suggested,
it might be better to propose it as a new CCT.
Others
include the fact that we don't use xsd:choice in
UBL
and so we'd probably need something like
two
separate BBIEs ExpiryDate and
ExpiryYearMonth
each of which would be optional and
implementers
would have to accept that either or even both
might
be used (the latter probably incorrectly ??). All
this
would need debate. Not least is the fact that we'd
have
to spend some time examining and reveiwing how,
for
the first time, we implement the CC naming rules
and
CCT metadata, etc whether there need be any
Supplementary Components and the like. All too
much
for me to do alone and all in one day and really I
need
to get the draft
model out today (which in Asia is almost
over).
So I can almost see Tim's glee as I back down on
this one :-)
** This means I'll suggest we take 1.0 draft 3,
that posted
earlier today, as the draft for review for 1.0
final. **
Phew.
Also, I'll start to look at the instances and FPSC
Specs
in the light of the Schemas I sent out earlier,
hoping
that the finally accepted versions will be the same
or
won't be far removed from these. The sample will need
some changing to adopt the split reusable
data
(CAT and CBT) but I hope I can do this with
some
confidence that in the timescale available it won't
have to
be radically changed again. I expect Ken will be
thinking
similarly :-)
All the best
Steve
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]