Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Analysis of supplementary component problem

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Thanks for the comment, Mike.  That makes it sound as though our only 
choice is #3, with a *requirement* to say what the values are of the 
nested SuppComs.  But I worry that this could be tricky, and certainly 
should involve the LC SC.

It's probably easy in a lot of cases involving Language.Code, because if 
we satisfy this with the xml:lang attribute, then it has a known code 
list.  But what about if we need to add information about the code list 
from which a code list agency identifier was taken?  (I know this isn't 
a real SuppCom from CCTS, but we had two people in our most recent 
meeting say that, in practice, they need this field.)

Am I missing something?  And can *all* the folks on this list who are 
involved in developing the CCTS please weigh in on this matter before I 
send my ravings to an official CC list? :-)

Thanks,

	Eve

Michael C. Rawlins wrote:
> Actually, I think the problem is much simpler than you lay out here.
> According to the ebXML CC spec, subcomponents are the lowest level 
> and don't have subcomponents.  However, I can certainly see how you 
> could get the impression below from reading the spec, and this is 
> one of the points I made when discussing my comments with the editors 
> last week. I strongly urge you to forward this directly to Mark Crawford 
> and the rest of the editing team to underscore the need to do something 
> about the relationship between Representation Terms and Core Component 
> Types.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike

-- 
Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com