[ubl-ndrsc] Question: qualified element names in top-level message defs

[Dave Carlson <dcarlson@ontogenics.com>]

It seems strange, and a bit inconsistent, to have element names fully qualifed
with object class term in top-level defintions, but not in the reusable types.

See the attached UML diagram (which is pruned to show less detail for this
illustration).

Why are all child element names of DespatchAdvice prefixed with
"DespatchAdvice"?

e.g. we have "DespatchAdviceIssueDate"
but in ReferencedOrder, we have simply "IssueDate"

This this the intended rule?

(Again, could someone copy this message to ubl-lcsc ?)

-- Dave

Attachment: DespatchAdvice_partial.gif
Description: GIF image