[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] FW: [ubl-lcsc] Meeting Minutes
(I
meant to cc this originally)
-----Original Message-----
From: Burcham, Bill Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:34 AM To: 'Lisa Seaburg'; Ubl-Lcsc; Ubl-Comment Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Meeting Minutes I
don't understand this item from the LCSC minutes:
Can
someone please clarify what LCSC thinks the NDRSC "preference"
is?
From
the NDRSC perspective I thought the big question was "to use 'extra' container
elements, or not". I thought the consensus we arrived at was represented
in the final two paragraphs of this message (by Eve): http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-ndrsc/200209/msg00028.html to
wit:
worth the extra power you get in customization. - We might find an occasional semantic ABIE that contains series of like elements (plus possibly an unlike thing or two), but it should rely on a regular analysis of functional dependencies. This discussion has opened our eyes to this possibility, and suggests the various 0..n and 1..n properties should be briefly re-examined for missing opportunities, but there's no need for wholesale changes. My
understanding is that NDRSC believes that there is not sufficient
motivation for our dictating 'extra' container elements (in the XML
binding). In other words the XML realization (done by The Perl
Script) of the association from OrderHeader to LineItem is fine as it
stands -- OrderHeader has an element with maxOccurs='unbounded' to represent the
association. I think NDRSC was suggesting that the name of the element
might ought to be something like "LineItemList" (if it ain't already) -- but
other than that, I think the _structure_ is fine.
Am I
off base?
-Bill
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC