Re: [ubl-ssc] Schema comparison

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Folks

I'm delighted to report that after two-way instance generations and 
validations on a good sample of the UBL documents with both 
1.0-cd and new EF ('Item 4') Schemas, apart from the four known
 issues (two trailing space and two currency code issues - see 
previous reports), there is only one other issue to report which is
that there is an inconsistency in the AcknowledgementResponseCode
values ('OrderResponseComplex' in 'Item 4' list of codes should be
'OrderResponse' according to the 1.0-cd Schema).

I have not validated with xerces but I attach the instances, corrected
for the known inconsistencies, so that anyone who wishes may do so.

This to my mind at least provides us with a good foundation on which 
to progress to 1.1. Thanks to David for very satisfactory results being 
now generated from his development version of EF.

I would add that the xsdrt Schemas sent out didn't seem to have been
corrected for the simple/complex content problem and that the above
just applies to the xsd Schemas

All the best

Steve


>>> "David Kruppke" <dill2@gefeg.com> 13/12/04 17:40:44 >>>
Hello SSC,

in the attachement there are the corrected schemas. The have "simpleContent"
instead of "complexContent".

"Item1.zzz" contains the ones exported from the old EF models, "Item4.zzz"
the ones created by the models imported directly from the ss.


Anne,

do I understand it right that you wanted to send my proposal for the new ss
for Specialized Data types to the tc list or was this my part?



All the best,



David

PKZIP (compressed) files