Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBP 2.0 definitions needing CPA templates

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Sacha , cc SBSC and Monica due to discussion below

Hi Sacha, This is where the time differences between UK and US come in handy:
I do apologise but I only just realised you were generating CPAs for the generic
definitions too so we'll need them for the attached too as well as the
one I sent earlier.
Sorry.


I wonder what the implications of having CPAs for the generic
definitions will be.
Is there a way to use the generic definition unchanged? Normally it would be
included into another to specialize it with attribute substitution
(I'd like to see
a demo of that as I'm not yet sure how it would work) for a particular schema
(typically other than UBL, though it could be another, say future,
version of UBL
or a customisation perhaps). What would happen if they were left as they are and
referenced in the CPAs as they are? On the other hand I appreciate the benefit
of illustrating a CPA referencing the generic definition as this may minimise
changes when the definition is specialized and needs to be referenced. But if
the CPA references the generic definition does that actually prove
useful in some
way? Can a CPA be that generic?

Any comments welcome :-)

All the best

Steve

ebxmlbp-2.0_generic-attached-document-notification-1.zip