[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Packaging team call
unfortunately, i cannot make this call but it would like to make sure a few items get onto the agenda (i am sure they will anyway, but i want to add my little bit). a. the pros and cons of substitution/abstract (are these the same thing?) is a side issue. the time for debate is past - we should adopt marty's architecture as is. it is the only practical option we have (and i personaly think it is an elegant one). the fact there is a NDR against this means the NDR needs re-examining not the code list representation. i thought that is what we had said since washington. code list will drive NDRs. b. it now appears from the code list representation mechanism means we have nothing to put in our 'specialised data types' schema. i think this is OK and in the spirit of the CCTS. the question is whether we should still have a placeholder/null SDT schema (a bit like we did in 1.0-Beta) or just drop it. this means we need to make adjustments to the schema modularity diagram (which we have to anyway as we have dropped the CLUDT schema). again, i see no issue with doing this. this modularity suggested in this diagram is an NDR in progress. as we develop and implement the code list representation we should be able to improve/simplify it. (see attached possibility) perhaps we can satisfy everyone by naming the Code Lists Schemas something like UBL-SpecialisedDatatype-CurrencyCode-Use-1.0-draft-8.xsd to indicate their role as SDT definitions. c. can i ask if the CLSC made any decision on the source format for Code.Content and Code.Name (anne's data capture task)? given the syntax of the code list representation, it may be simpler just to hand code these directly in the final syntax (ie as enumerations) rather than mock up our own syntax (that i made up), then load this into EDIFIX and have it generate the enumerations. i am willing to do some editing if necessary. d. we are very close, but still lacking an end-to-end example of code list usage. having made decision about the above and before we get GEFEG cutting code it may be a good idea for Stephen to apply this to his sample documents (or a fragment of them) and demonstrate from model to instance using a standard code and a non-standard (as a comparison). jon.bosak@sun.com wrote: >I suggest that we use some of the Packaging Team meeting (Friday >12 March at 8 a.m. California time) to discuss schema coordination >as well. > >Jon > >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. > > > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]