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] R13 contradiction

I wrote this in an attempt to put the naming instructions for each kind 
of thing in its own separate numbered rule.  The element name does not 
directly equal the dictionary entry name; it is the entry name with a 
bunch of truncating rules applied (object class term removed, separators 
removed, duplicated words removed, etc.).  Is this unclear in R13?  I 
hadn't thought so.

Also, your compressed version of the subsequent paragraph is a little 
misleading: It's more like "If the object class term would have been 
(would be?) helpful in the (XML), it should be (appear) in the property 
qualifier field (of the spreadsheet)" -- not "it should appear in the 
XML", which would be tautological.  This bit is supposed to serve as 
advice for modelers, and should ideally belong somewhere in the LC 
methodology in addition to having a non-normative reminder here.


Burcham, Bill wrote:
> 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.

Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC