[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers
I think as well that it's important to give due considerations to decisions made about containers. I'm just thinking aloud that if the Containers proposition hasn't included coverage on various possibile effects, it might be a little hasty to introduce them so quickly. The "not very-disturbingly- backward-incompatible manner" may, by then, be the norm since many more instances will be in circulation than the schemas. An example I manage to find is: <DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit> where, for convenience of readers, the schema is: <DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit> <ID>...</ID> <TypeCode>...</TypeCode> <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> </DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit> So an instance could look like this: (for illustration, <UBLContainer> is used as the container's name) <DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit> <ID>...</ID> <TypeCode>...</TypeCode> <UBLContainer> <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine> </UBLContainer> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage> </DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit> It's hardly uniform treatment of repetitions, I'd say. There's another example in OrderResponse where the schema is: <OrderResponse> ... <AllowanceCharge> <!-- 0..n --> </AllowanceCharge> ... <ReferencedOrderLine> <!-- 1..n --> </ReferencedOrderLine> </OrderResponse> Could NDR consider giving some more spin to the 0..n coverage (or other aspects of containership) before it's implemented? Thanks. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6743-7875 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/ On Fri, 16 May 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote: >>I'd rather not go there at this time. IOW: we finally reached a decision >>about containers that is agreeable to all. Let's leave it >>there. It's not perfect, but it's a decision, and we can all live >>with it, and we can change it in the future if needed (perhaps along >>your line of thought) in a not very-disturbingly-backward-incompatible >>manner.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]