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: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] UBL Schemas for all Business Documents

Hello Bill,

that would be OK. A thought, I'm using always the UBL-Names for XSD complex type names. I guess, there is still a bug in may program. But I will solve this as soon as possible. A have seen some another bugs in my programm, too. The cardinalities are not correct and not all definitions are existing.
But I'm fixing this bugs now and hope, I can send out the corrected XML-schemes, today.

Kind regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Burcham, Bill [mailto:Bill_Burcham@stercomm.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2002 21:14
To: Stuhec, Gunther; UBL-NDRSC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] UBL Schemas for all Business Documents

(narrowed disribution to NDRSC)

Right _on_ Gunther!  I had a look at the Order spreadsheet and it looks
good.  Peeked at the schema too and that looks good too.  You've come a long
way in a couple months!

The one thing I request, Gunther is that your scripts use the "UBL Name"
rather than the "Dictionary Entry Name" for the XSD complex type name.  The
effect would be that instead of seeing complex types with names like
OrderDetails, AddressDetails -- we'd see complex types with names like
"Order" and "Address".

Note I am _not_ quibbling about the need to append the word "Details" to the
end of the dictionary entry name as per rule C32 from CCTS 1.85.  I'm just
suggesting we use the UBL Name instead of the dictionary entry name.

Would that be ok?

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuhec, Gunther [mailto:gunther.stuhec@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:46 PM
To: UBL-NDRSC (E-mail); UBL-LCSC (E-mail)
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] UBL Schemas for all Business Documents

Hello all,

I generated for all existing business documents (Depatch Advice, Invoice,
Order, Order Response, Order Response Simple, Receipt Advice) the UBL based
XML Schemas.

I found in the diverse spreadsheets some inconsistencies. I changed these
and I highlighted these with the colour orange.
I moved all information from the two new coloumns of all ASBIE into the
coloums "Qualifier Term of Property Term", "Property Term" and
"Representation Term". Because according the ebXML CCTS V1.9 are the two
additional coloumns for ABIEs are not necessary any more. The ASBIE and BBIE
are expressing the same, an Object. Therefore, they based on the same naming
rules. But the ASBIE using instead of "representation term" the "object
class term". This "object class term" can be expressed in the same coloumn
as "representation term". Additionally, an ASBIE must have an "property
term", too. Therefore, I copied all "object class terms" of each ASBIE into
the coloumn "property term".

I checked all schemas with XML Spy. And all schemas are valid now. Please
review these schemas. May be there can be some mistakes or inconsistencies
in it. Tell me this as soon as possible, because I'm from December, 21st to
January, 2nd in vacation.

Kind regards,


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC