[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes NDRSC 4 February 2004
Sue, whatever comments you may have added to the text below, I am unable to find them as separate from the original text. Could you highlight them in some manner? Thanks! Sue Probert wrote: > Hi Mavis > > I would like to make some comments which I have documented below... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mavis Cournane [mailto:mavis.cournane@cognitran.com] > Sent: 06 February 2004 08:02 > To: UBL-NDRSC (ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org) > Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Minutes NDRSC 4 February 2004 > > > > > Dear all > below are the minutes for this week's audio. > > Regards > Mavis > > -------------------- > 1. Roll call > > Mavis Cournane (will attend F2F) > Michael Grimley (will attend F2F) > Stephen Green (will not attend F2F) > Eduardo Gutentag (will attend F2F) > Jim Wilson (will not attend F2F) > Marion Royal (will attend F2F) > Sue Probert (will attend F2F) > Lisa Seaburg (will attend F2F) > Paul Thorpe (will attend F2F) > > Regrets > Anne Hendry > Mark Crawford > > AWOL > Gunther Stuhec > > 2. Subcommittee Reports > LCSC report > Issue that came up that Stephen raised with regards to our Representation > Term schema. This is an > agenda item. > LC are pretty close to finishing the model. > > Code Lists > The requirements document is coming together nicely. But does it reflect > what > is required for 1.0 UBL. > There are a number of actions outstanding on the requirement document. > There may be a gulf between what LCSC needs for production, what NDR expects > the > methodology to be. > We have to go ahead with the Code List production model of what we have now > in > LCSC because there is no time to wait > on this. > > TTSC > Michael Dill and TTSC have been very active. > > The first range of schemas have been produced from Edifix. There are no > limitations that are going to be dealt with.For now > they have been done from the beta spreadsheet. > > 3. Datatype request from LCSC. > > LS: Is NDR the correct place to request a new datatype. > SG: This is finding out what a new datatype will consist of. Tim's opinion > is > that we should ask NDR to create > the datatype for us. I have done a mock up of one. This datatype would live > in > the unqualified datatypes schema? > SG: I don't know. > SP: NDR agreed not to put any UBL proposed new CCTs into the NDR RT schema. > Instead they will be submitted to the CCTS revision and TBG17. One of the > ways we could deal > with this is to create a new qualified Datatype. > SG: It is not based on DateTime so we can't use it. > It is based on string all I have done is create a pattern. > LS: THat is incorrect. Your best way is to reuse the datetime datatype and > restrict it. > SP: WE can create that in the normal way as a restricted datatype of > DateTime. > EG: Why do we need a datatype that changes the order of the factors. Isn't > that > stylesheet issue. > SG: It is to get rid of the requirements of Date. > SP: We want a specific type of DateTime. > SG: The real problem is that we can't include the Day and Date won't work > without it. > LS: THat is where restriction comes in. > SP: WE have already done it, Time datatype is restricted. > We have 3 datatypes already, the generic DateTime, 2 restricted ones, one to > > become Date on its own, and the other Time on its own. WE just > need another one called YearMonth. > SG: How do we do it with schema? > SP: With a primitive. > SG: In order to restrict DateTime, you need a mechanism to restrict the > basetype for DateTime. > > SG: The time one is actually using xsd:Time. THere is already an xsd you can > > use. > I don't know a way of restricting xsd:Date. > EG: What is the problem with using GYearMonth. > SG:Neither of those are a schema restriction of the core component datetime. > > EG: They are schema restrictions. > EG: We need to find out how it was done. > LS: I am looking at the schema now. I am looking at the RT schema. It has > datetype and timetype. They have xsd:Date and xsd:Time. > We want to base it on GYearMonth. > LS: Let's do this through email. > We don't really want to use a string. > SG:It is for credit card expiry date, more a string than a date. > SG: We might need to take this to ISC for workarounds. > LS: WE can't just kludge things. > > Action: LS to talk to Garret and Gunther by Monday. > > > 4. Representation Term schema is a related topic. > SP: The error that might be in this is much more serious and could be very > detrimental to the finished product. > The RT schema appears to inherit from the CCT schema. We are not sure > exactly. > It looks like the IdentifierDatatype picks up successfully from the > Identifier Type in CCT, but for the Code one it is not bringing it. > RT xsd that is going to be the unquailified datatype xsd. > LS: We need to get some help from Garret. > SG: If we can't get this resolved in this schema. We could use the UBL > Datatypes schema. > SP: It looks like it might be able to put it right in the RT schema. > SG: Can we edit this without Gunther. It is not meant to have RT as a > prefix, > not have the same namespace. Can it be done in time for 1.0 > SP: Yes it can. Gunther and Garret definitely know how to do it. > Edifix need to do this too. > MHC: We should let it alone until Monday, for definite Monday action. > ACTION: Sue to report to the chairs SC on Monday if this can be resolved. If > > not Sue will ask for an emergency chairs call. > > SG: We always had a lack of supplementary components in Amount. WE have only > > ever had versionId and currencyID. SO there is now way of saying > which code list you are using. > SP: WE won't do this for 1.0 > SG: WHy can't we restrict Amount and not have them in there. > SP: WHy bother? They are optional. We can't be CCTS compliant if we take out > > CurrencyCode. > SG: WE should at least make notes for the documentation about these type of > things. Because we have relied on these, and they are not reliable, it might > be an idea to create BBIEs for Measure and Quantity. It would allow us to > use > the Code List mechanism for that. > SP: Does it really matter for 1.0 > SG: People are going to be creating lots of documents based on 1.0 > SP: WE document the version of the currency code list. > MHC: Can't we document it in a release note. > SG: WE can only give advice but that might be not to use UBL. > SP: OUr schema has it in the documentation of the Amount RT. > SG: It is not good enough. The schema is not where the data is going to be. > SP: I have never known anyone to use the parameters in Edifact. > MHC: Action to mail Jon and ask for this to be a multi-sc session. > > 5. Type=Xsd:Token is missing from the RT schema in Amounts, Quantity etc. > EG: That is part of the library task. > SP: Gunther did this as part of his TTSC work. > Action: MHC to mail Anne about this. > > SG: There is no ambiguity as to how negative amounts are validated by xsd > schema - can we confirm this. > E.g Can somebody use a comma as a decimal place? > I think Anne found the answers in the specs. Anne thinks from the XML schema > > spec there is no way to use anything than a dot for a decimal unless you > specify another language or locality. > LS: I thought we could use negatives without any problem. > SG: There are 2 separate issues, decimal and negative. > EG: It is universally accepted that number preceded by a dash is negative > and > that is restricted out in xsd. > SG: Can you use a succeeding dash? > EG: That is a stylesheet issue. > SG: If they were mistakenly to have one, > EG: this would be an error. > SG: COuld you use 10,25 validly. > JW/EG: Probably not. One way to get around it, is to have 2 values. One for > the > left of the point, the other to the right of the point. > SG: YOu could have a BBIe to specify the separator. > EG: That would be wrong thing to do. > > 6. Review on editorial work on latest version of NDR document and checklist > LS: I have no clue. This is a big issue. > NDR has to ask Mark this. He says the rules have not changed but the > explanatory text has changed. > LS: I will distribute the checklist. > SP: Tim was clear that he needs approved NDR answers to these questions. > Action: Lisa to mail Mark. > > > > > > > > > > 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_workgro > up.php. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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. -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442 Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]