Re: [ubl-sbsc] What process for a Technical Corrigendum for UBL1.0 SBS 1.0?

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Thanks Ken

Just so you know I've seen your posting, though I don't
yet know the process answer. Great that the subset
definition files are not affected - these are the files
pointed to in specs, UBP etc and are as you say the
normative ones so that is good news.

All the best

Steve



Quoting "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I've just found a fault in the synthesis of a set of XPath files in 
> the UBL 1.0 SBS 1.0 committee spec deliverable.
>
> This was discovered in my real-world application of the draft UBL 2.0 
> SBS XPath files here in Denmark ... surprise, surprise.
>
> There are no changes to the definition of the SBS or the XPath files, 
> just a fault in the generation of the XPath instance files according 
> to the existing definition.  An important enough fault that the XPath 
> instance files are not useful as they stand.  It happens that the 
> XPath description files are not at fault, the fault is in the 
> generation of the instance files from the description files.
>
> My proposed update to the instance files would not change a single 
> datum of the description files and the description files are the only 
> normative set of files.
>
> What would be the process of issuing a technical corrigendum UBL 1.0 
> SBS 1.0.1?
>
> . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
>