Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes NDRSC 8 October 2003

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

I understood that NDR had 'frozen' the development of new rules weeks 
ago and was focussed on producing a publishable document for November's 
plenary meeting.  i am concerned about two entries in your 
minutes.(extracted below)

since Sept 30th what LC have been asking for is a review against those 
rules (checklist dated 16th Sept).  of course, clarification and 
refinement may be necessary  - but  not the addition of new rules.  you 
will appreciate that many people are involved in the production of each 
library version and it is unfair to ask us all to do re-work against  a 
moving target.  

If the NDR team wish to continue extending this list, that is fine, but 
what we are concerned about now is adhering to the current set.  We 
would rather that your energies where put into this review rather than 
undertaking further development.

my view is that it is too late in our schedule to make changes for 
additional rules for 1.0, regardless of how trivial they may seem.  the 
time has past (well past). I hope that is understood by the NDR team. 
 We have to move on from this now.


Lisa-Aeon wrote:

>ISSUE 1. 
>
>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.
>  
>

and

>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.
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160