Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 109 Abstract Complex Types

[Dan Vint <dvint@acord.org>]

Abstract is a useful composition tool, do we also want to allow the side 
effect of being able to substitute elements defined from same types? The 
example is a Address and UKAddress  and USAddress from the Schema Primer. I 
can use Address in the definition of an element and it allows all three of 
these to be used. Should we say the final derivations should only be 
referenced?

..dan

At 10:21 AM 7/16/2003 -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 23, 2003
>
>*******************************
>[R 109] Abstract Complex Types MAY be used (for UBL ur-schema)..
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003