Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UBL: question on CCT language component

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

In relation to the ccts xsd and those related xsds, I am simply trying 
to identify the cct primitive types and our associated data types for 
the supplementary components that weren't originally specified in those 
files since we are unrestricting (and therefore now including) more of 
those components than what we had in there going into the f2f.

In those files up to the f2f were almost all token, a restriction on 
normalizedString.  If  you expected it to be normalizeString, then, yes, 
perhaps this was confused during the token vs. string discussions.  So 
this maybe should be revisited?

-Anne

Stephen Green wrote:

>Anne
>
>I'm worried that in all this we might inadvertently drop the LC/NDR
>resolution to use xsd:normalizedString wherever there is the possibility
>that more than one space need be preserved (having business meaning).
>
>I think it was decided for Identifier but there was less certainty about
>using it for Code.
>
>*I note that most Supp Comps are identifiers.*
>Perhaps this got neglected as changes were made to the Schemas and
>then the omissions reinforced as we discussed xsd:token versus xsd:string.
>
>Steve
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Anne Hendry" <anne.hendry@sun.com>
>To: <ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:16 AM
>Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] UBL: question on CCT language component
>
>
>  
>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>In matching up the UBL xsd datatype assignments to cct types, I could
>>use some clarification on the 'language*' components.  All other
>>components listed in table 8-2 of ccts 2.01 have a 'content' component
>>and then some supplementary components.  However, language* components
>>seem to be all supplementary, with no content component - they just
>>appear as 'Language.Identifier' and 'Language.Locale.Identifier'.  So,
>>then, going through the xsd representation of the Code type in table
>>8-2, for example, I have all the attributes (supplementary components)
>>of Code type accounted for, but there is one extra in the schema that is
>>not in the cct 8-2 table.  That is 'languageID'.  Here is the xsd for
>>the 'Code' element:
>>
>>- <xsd:simpleContent>
>>- <xsd:extension base="xsd:token">
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listID" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listAgencyID" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listAgencyName" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listName" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listVersionID" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="name" type="xsd:token" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="languageID" type="xsd:language" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listURI" type="xsd:anyURI" use="optional" />
>>  <xsd:attribute name="listSchemeURI" type="xsd:anyURI" use="optional" />
>>  </xsd:extension>
>>  </xsd:simpleContent>
>>
>>The definition of the 'Language.Identifier' component in the ccts 8-2
>>table defines it as "The indentifier of the language used in the
>>corresponding text string."  Well, ok, there is a 'text' string (name)
>>in the schema right above this that corresponds to the ccts entry in 8-2
>>'Code.Name.Text'.  However, there are other 'text' strings (eg. in
>>BinaryObject Name, etc) in 8-2 tha t don't seem to have a 'languageID'
>>attribute attached.
>>
>>So my questions are:
>>
>>a) Why does Language.Identifier not have a content component?  It seems
>>like somewhat of a free-floating supplementary component the way it is
>>    
>>
>now.
>  
>
>>b) When/how do we choose to use the Language.Identifier?
>>c) Along with Language.Identifier in table 8-2 there is
>>'Language.Locale.Identifier', also a seemingly free-floating
>>supplementary component.  Is it expected that wherever there is a
>>Language.Identifier attribute needed/used there should also be a
>>Language.Locale.Identifier?
>>
>>I am only looking at the cct schema. I'm assuming the rep terms schema
>>is going away.  Is this a correct assumption and I should only look at
>>cct?  What about the cc parameters schema - will that be auto-generated
>>(or will that one be removed too)??
>>
>>Thanks,
>>An ne
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>>    
>>
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgro
>up.php.
>  
>
>>    
>>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>