Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

See comments in-line

"Eve L. Maler" wrote :

> The proposal (which did get adopted; Mavis will be following up with the
> minutes soon) does not depend on the RTs being identical to the CCTs.

That's good to hear

> It
> seems to me that there is a crude implied inheritance mechanism at work
> here, with the CCT Numeric.Type being an ancestor of several of the RTs!

I don't think that's the right way to think about them.  Mark can correct me if I'm
wrong, but I don't believe there is an inheritance mechanism even implied.  There
is nothing more than a undefined "link".

> Since the RTs are more expressive and since the TC committed to maintaining
> a clear list of the RTs UBL uses (recognizing that we may need to add some due
> to the syntax-specific nature of our work or for other reasons), it seems safe
> to stick with RTs as part of our naming scheme.

The RTs are definitely part of the ebXML dictionary naming scheme.  If we are
basing element, etc., names on the dictionary names, then they are part of our
naming scheme.

> The CCTs could end up being
> referenced only in the dictionary documentation, and even then, if the CCTs
> are less expressive, RTs work better there too.

If I understand correctly, in practical terms we are really not using CCTs.  We are
creating schema types which correspond to RTs.  This seems to me to be the only
reasonable way to go, since schema types based on CCTs are too general (in
accordance with your suggestion of an implied inheritance),

> I wonder, though, if it would be handy for us to explicitly keep track of the
> RT-to-CCT correspondence even after we start adding a few new RTs.

If we want to maintain ebXML/CEFACT CC compliance, then I would hesitate to add new
RTs.

>
>
>          Eve
>
> At 01:38 PM 1/26/02 -0600, Mike Rawlins wrote:
> >One thing I do need to note, however, in case it did not come up in
> >discussion:
> >
> >There is *not* a one-to-one correspondence between CCTs and Representation
> >Terms
> >in the latest CC technical spec.   For example, the representation terms
> >Percent,
> >Rate, and Value all "link" to the CCT Numeric.Type.  Date Time.Type and
> >Text.Type
> >also have such many-to-one links.  At first glance I'm not quite sure of the
> >impact that this has on the proposed scheme, but I have a feeling that it
> >needs
> >to be considered.   If the scheme is in any way dependent on a one-to-one link
> >between types (XML schema type declarations and CCTs) and representation
> >terms,
> >it is going to have problems.
> >
> >BTW - I think this many-to-one relationship between representation terms
> >and CCTs
> >is, at best, an awkward feature of the current CC spec and will so state
> >during
> >the public comment period.
>
> --
> Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
> Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com