[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] Status of issues raised in November 2010
At 2011-02-14 16:41 +0100, Arianna Brutti wrote: >Hi Ken, > >--> about item (2), currently we have: > >ASBIE from Location to LocationCoordinate cardinality 0..1 > >and LocationCoordinate is as follows: > >CoordinateSystemCode 0..1 >LatitudeDegreesMeasure 0..1 >LatitudeMinutesMeasure 0..1 >LatitudeDirectionCode 0..1 >LongitudeDegreesMeasure 0..1 >LongitudeMinutesMeasure 0..1 >LongitudeDirectionCode 0..1 >AltitudeMeasure 0..1 > >Please, let me know if the final decision was to update the cardinalities. The decision is up to PSC, not to me. Someone identified the need to express an address as an arbitrary area and could not do so using a single location coordinate. I am not questioning the definition of a single location coordinate, I'm questioning its use in the address and other locations in the model. In my argument I presented two possible ways of doing this: simply changing the cardinality to "0..n" or by introducing a new ABIE for a LocationRegion (or LocationArea?) that represents a different semantic (area instead of point). Then LocationCoordinate stays as "0..1" in address and the new LocationRegion is added to address as "0..1". The other LocationCoordinate uses might also be other candidates for adding a LocationRegion. Then the definition of LocationRegion has LocationCoordinate with "0..n" so that one then describes the region as a set of points. But it is up to PSC to decide to change LocationCoordinate or introduce LocationRegion. It is not up to me. Looking at the LocationCoordinate ABIE here: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#Table_LocationCoordinate.Details ... I see by the carets below the UBL name that there are three ASBIEs that reference this ABIE: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-41 http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-1083 http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-1689 By clicking on the caret below the row number at the left, these are the ABIEs where we would consider adding the new LocationRegion if we go that way; Address, Location and SubsidiaryLocation: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#Table_Address.Details http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#Table_Location.Details http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#Table_SubsidiaryLocation.Details It is my opinion that we add LocationRegion rather than increasing the cardinality of LocationCoordinate because the two concepts are different, but they only need to be made different if this makes business sense. No need making it unnecessarily complex if it is sufficient to simply increase the cardinality of LocationCoordinate. You know I have a bad habit of making things more complex than necessary when I don't understand the business requirement. I hope TSC will have an opinion about this, and so I will post to TSC a link to this discussion today. I would think that in transportation this question of locations and regions is important. >--> About point (3): could you provide me a list of "bad" descriptions? Yes, I will. I was unsure if this was as important to PSC as it is to me. I would like to see all of the descriptions use only ASCII characters (Unicode characters from "~" and below). This will help anyone who is working with the spreadsheets and schemas. This report will be included in my SGTG analysis of the next export from eDoCreator. If I get the time before the calls this week, I will try to run the report on PRD1. Oh, I failed to mention that prohibiting "--" in definitions will also be helpful so that downstream XML processing tools don't have to change the definition when putting the definition into an XML comment. >--> About point (4) I agree with you. During the 2nd public review, >we could make a list of tautological definitions and update them. I'm glad both PSC and TSC will take on this task. I think it is incredibly important in order to convey the meaning of what PSC/TSC has meant for each of the constructs. This will reduce the number of support questions sent to the TC or to UBL-Dev as more and more people embrace UBL. Thank you, Arianna. . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]