OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ndrsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8

yes i agree that we gain nothing from separating the CCT from the RT - just confusion.  This is a proposal in our comments - one list (i prefer the name RT), that if not unbounded is controlled.

Its ironic that what was a suggestion in ebXML has now become entrenched - lets hope its not too late to back out of it!

Gregory, Arofan wrote:
>From what I've been able to determine from the CCTS, what they have proposed does not completely solve our problem. I think we'll need to take a closer look at this, and discuss.
The more I look at this, the lesss useful a distinction between RT and CCT becomes - having both, with anything but a 1-to-1 correspondence, seems to undermine the usefulness of naming conventions as established. And not having a set of re-usable low-level "types" seems to destroy the primary benefit of reuse.
In attempting to put together two lists: one of RTs and one of CCTs, with some alignment between them, I'm convincing myself that we need a single, unbounded list.  Our modelling is getting in the way of reaching our objective, both for CC and for UBL.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:24 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Re: version 2 UBL Feedback to CCTS 1.8


I am pulling together a fairly comprehensive summary of the NDR and LCSC comments.  

I have a comment on Arofan's RT/CCT proposal.  It appears that the newly acquired Content and Supplementary Components of the CCTS (table 8-2 on page 87) may be the way they intend to address the issue of things like price precision vs. amounts.  i.e. a syntax-independent yet solid physical representation of data.  Does anyone else see that, or have I missed something?

Burcham, Bill wrote:
40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07344DA7@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com" type="cite">
Attached is version 2 of the NDRSC feedback document to Core Components Technical Specification 1.8.
This version has an updated CC meta-model (diagram) and includes Arofan's RT/CCT feedback (hope you don't mind Arofan -- I snarfed it off the portal).

tim mcgrath
fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142

tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC