Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 84

[Dan Vint <dvint@acord.org>]

What are we really trying to say with this rule?
Is that any UBL document should have a matching Schema? Should there also 
be a statement about validity based upon that schema? I would think 
something like this is more appropriate:

[R 84]   Any UBL messages MUST have a corresponding schema and the data 
stream must be valid based upon that schema. You should not rely
merely on well-formedness when defining and building a message..



At 10:17 AM 7/14/2003 -0500, Lisa-Aeon wrote:
>Rules for Voting:  Each email will have only one rule in it, I will try to
>mark the rules that group with it, or rules that might duplicate it.  The
>membership has 5 working days to bring forth objection or discussion, after
>the 5 working days, if there are no objections, the rule will be assumed to
>be "ACCEPTED" and be given to the LCSC for their implementation.
>
>Please Reply leaving first email in Reply.
>
>Voting period on this rule ends:  July 18, 2003
>
>*******************************
>[R 84]   UBL messages must express semantics fully in schemas and not rely
>merely on well-formedness.
>
>
>ATG Decision:  rule has not yet been discussed by ATG2
>
>
>
>---
>
>File has not been scanned
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003