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] R13 contradiction

R13 and the subsequent paragraph are contradictory.  R13 says (incorrectly)
that the element name = the "(full dictionary entry name of the
property)..."  The subsequent paragraph goes on to say that "if the object
class term would have been helpful in the (XML) it should be (present) in
the (XML)".  If R13 is correct then the object class term is always present
and there's no need for the subsequent paragraph.

I know I've missed some subsequent discussions, but when we ratified global
elements in Boston, we did not say we would start generating element names =
dictionary entry terms.  Doing so would eliminate all opportunity for
element reuse since there would be no way the same tag name could occur in
two  content models (since the two content models would have different
"object class terms").

If I'm right R13 is wrong and also we've got quite an issue with the schemas
that are about to be shipped as UBL 1.0.

Here's the two paragraphs for your reference:

[R 13]	An element name in an element declaration [TBD: ref= or name=?]
based on a property must be the full dictionary name of the property in the
syntax-neutral model, with the separators and object class term removed, and
with the property term removed if it is identical or similar to the
representation term, with the following term pairs considered similar:
Identification/Identifier and Identification/Code. If the representation
term is "Text", it must be removed.  If the representation term is
"Identifier", it must be replaced with "ID". Examples: Person. Name. Text
becomes Name, Person. Residence. Address becomes ResidenceAddress, and
Address. Country. Identifier becomes CountryID. [TBD: This rule seems very
long. Is there any way it can be broken down into multiple rules?]

If the object class term would have been helpful in the resulting XML name
for clarity, it should be repeated in the property qualifier field. For
example, if Party. Identification. Identifier would result in an element
name of ID, and if this name would be confusing because a Party object has
many different identifiers as properties, then the property should have been
named Party. Party Identification. Identifier instead, resulting in an
element name of PartyID.

 Bill Burcham
Sr. Software Architect, Standards and Applied Technology
Sterling Commerce, Inc.

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC