[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Analysis Draft 8 was Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes NDRSC 8 October 2003
thanks for throwing yourself into the breech. you sure know how to make yourself popular ;-) i will make this analysis paper part of the LC/QA meeting on Friday OCt 10th. I suggest we all look at the paper and then be prepared to dispose of these items then. So i suggest anyone wishing to comment participate in that call. Lisa-Aeon wrote: >I have included the LCSC on this email because, as we come down to the wire, >may of the issues we discussed today impact the LCSC. Please read through >the minutes, and the attached AnalysisDraft8.xls. The Anslysis document is >probably the most important thing for the two groups to work through and >agree upon. The problems found, the issues mentioned, and the fixes, bring >the two groups into better alignment. > >We all agree that we can not release without this alignment, so please read >up. Comments are welcome and wanted. Reply to your own list (or both if >you can) with your comments, I will try to monitor both lists and cross >post them for both groups to see. Thank you everyone for the hard work you >are all putting in. We are getting closer! > >************************************************************************** > >Minutes for the NDRSC ConCall 8 October 2003 > >Attended: Lisa Seaburg (Chair), Mavis Cournane, Arofan Gregory, Jon Bosak, >Paul Thorpe, Tony Coates, Stephen Green, Gunther Stuhec, Mark Crawford, Sue >Probert, Eduardo Gutentag, Garrett Minakawa, Mike Grimley, Jim Wilson, > >B. Schedule Review: > >We are in week 3, this may be pushed back a week, by changes in LCSC. > > Week 3 (10/8) > 1. NDR Doc partial review by SC, > 2. Lisa doing Schema QA, halfway done. > 3. Rule changes to be reviewed and discussed. > 4. Mark says he will try to have another section to us by end of week, >latest Tuesday. > Week 2 (10/15) (Mavis to Chair) NDR Doc review by SC > 1. Finish the Schema QA, get issues and comments to the LCSC. This >discussion has to happen ASAP. > 2. Review NDR document installment from Mark > Week 1 (10/22) (Mark to Chair) NDR Doc review by SC > Week 0 (10/29) (Lisa to Chair) Release on Friday > >We have a lot of issues to discuss that could impact the schedule above, we >will revisit schedule once decisions are made. > >C. Schema QA and analysis: LISA'S REPORT BELOW > >LS: I read through the rules and the schema side by side doing a >comparison. Read the rule, then went to the schema to see how it was >implemented. These are my findings. > >See the Spreadsheet named: AnalysisDraft8.xls which is attached to this >email. > >Discussion Points on each Issue/Comment: > >1. LS: I talked to Garret and Gunther and these are being worked on as we >speak. We gave LCSC push back on this so now it should be under control. > >Also where is the "cat" CommonAggregateTypes schema module? >LS: What is the CAT namespace? >GS: WE have not decided any rules for this. >MC: Where is the rule for that. >GS: WE decided this verbally in Montreal. >LS: It is already in the schema >MC: What is it? >GS: The reusable types are in this namespace. >This comes from the library group. >MC: What do I write in the Design Document. Are we creating a CAT module >that contains all reusable aggregates. >LS: Do we need a rule? >AG: This came out of NDR in MASS. >LS: Connect this to rule SSM 5 >MC: There is supposed to be a namespace for each schema. But the modules all >go in to a single namespace. These >rules are pre--Montreal. >I take that back. All schema modules must have its own namespace (NMS9) This >is non-conformance on the part of library. >LS: How will that effect Chee Kai's work? >It will change all of the XPATH work etc? >GS: I cannot speak for Chee Kai but it does not cause me any major problems. >It won't change XPATH and forms. It depends >on the namespace prefixes. >EG: Why? >GS: If you are using a different ns prefix for each document, and you use >this document in another schema it can cause you >problems. I can't tell about XSL forms. >MC: I think we need a couple of more rules. It sounds like SSM5 needs to >have MUST. >We need a rule that says that a schema module defining all common leaf types >must be created, a schema module defining >all common aggregate types must be created, the common leaf types schema >module must be named common leaf types schema module and >ditto for common aggregate types. > >Things we need to vote on >ISSUE 1. Motion We agree on the principle and leave it to Mark to do the >wordsmithing. > >Principles: > >A schema module defining all common basic types must be created, it must be >named common basic types schema module, the namespace will be "cbt". > >A schema module defining all common aggregate types must be created, it must >be called common aggregate types schema module, the namespace will be >"cat". > >We will say that common is for type definitions that are reused across >multiple schemas. > >The structure of our schemas are: > >All schema modules import the rt (rt imports the cct), dt, cbt, cat modules. > >GS: It is not necessary to import core component types. You are only >importing the RTs. We decided that data types are not necessary for the >first version of the library. We are only importing RT, CAB and ATs. > >To handle the implementation and fixing of the NDR rules: >We maintain a log of known issues, the beta does not conform to these rules, >the final release will fix this. > >MC: SSM3, is it technically incorrect. >AG: Yes it is. It has to have exceptions for the CAT and common leaf types. >EG: All we are saying is that modules have to be in the same ns as the >schema itself. >AG: The question is what is in that document. >EG: You are importing them. You have a schema made up of 4-5 different >modules, it belongs to that namespace. >Apart from that you are importing other UBL constructs. >MC: I guess the real issue is how we define "internal" in SSM3. >AG: The idea is that common stuff is in its own ns >We are allowing the possibility for a schema to break things in to other >modules. We are just allowing for it but not doing it ourselves., > > >ISSUE 4. > >Every one of them with the exception of Dictionary Entry name does not apply >to Element Decl. We should modify the rule to just have Type Definition. >Should we create a new rule every element Decl must contain the annotation >for its dictionary entry name. > >ISSUE 7. > >LS: My email "Missing Pieces". Gunther and I realized there was a rule 29a-i >that was written and on Sept 10 in our Minutes we had voted to accept with >quorum and they were left off our list. It impacts the work LCSC is doing. >It impacts the namespaces of the current code lists. > >GS: I suggest the LCSC have to change this to reflect our decisions. These >namespaces should be defined using the information in the supplementary >components. >MC: With quorum we voted on these rules. >SG: They were not in the checklist that went to LC. >GS: I don't think it is so much work to implement this but I can't talk for >Chee Kai. IF we do not do this as we stated using the supplementary >components, we are not in alignment with the CCTS TEch Spec. >SP: We need to determine what has been implemented >SG: I am not sure, perhaps they are carrying the supplementary component as >an annotation. >MC: IF that is the case then it is broken. >Ls: Let's put this on hold and I will work this a bit with Gunther. Somebody >needs to speak to Chee Kai. >SG: He may have put it in the tool without putting it in the schema. >LS: I will take an action to progress this with Gunther and liaise with Chee >Kai if indeed Gunther determines that this is not CCTS compliant. > > >ISSUE 5. See spreadsheet. > > >ISSUE 6. See Spreadsheet. > >ISSUE 7. Gunther has created files, they are sent to both groups, this has >been discussed both at the LCSC teleconference this week and the NDRSC >concall. > > >ISSUE 8. As a group we decided to use the sequence that LCSC has already >implemented, so this needs to be changed in the NDR documentation. > > >ISSUE 13. Lisa discussed this with Gunther and Garrett, we vote to go ahead >and change wording. Mark to make change in NDR rules. > > >D. AOB >Next Teleconference call is 15 October, 2003, Mavis Cournane to Chair. > >E. Adjoun > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Lisa Seaburg >AEON Consulting >Website: http://www.aeon-llc.com >Email: lseaburg@aeon-llc.com >Alternative Email: xcblgeek@yahoo.com >Phone: 662-562-7676 >Cellphone: 662-501-7676 > >"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun." > -Katharine Hepburn >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003 > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]