[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Model changes for Transport
Thanks for posting this, Andy!I think the suggested changes for descriptions, extension, remarks, terms, etc. are all appropriate for the reason of including their equivalents in multiple languages.
At 2012-12-10 22:10 -0500, Andrew M Schoka wrote:
Please review them at your earliest convenience and no later than 13 Dec 2012 so that the UBL TC can go forward with the preparation of UBL 2.1 PRD3.
DEN: Goods Item. Required_ Customs Identifier.Identifier- if Jon's suggestion that there exists a single identifier for a set of tariff codes, then the cardinality shouldn't change - if you have decided that "0..n" is appropriate for this, then the definition should revert closer to the original, though the original definition is in the plural and refers to a singleton concept that is repeatable - original: Additional tariff codes required to specify a type of goods for Customs, transport, statistical, or other regulatory purposes. - proposed: Additional tariff code required to specify a type of goods for Customs, transport, statistical, or other regulatory purposes.
DEN: Hazardous Item. Technical_ Name. Name- in column H it is asked "Just one hazardous substance per goods item?" but that doesn't suggest that there exists more than one name for a single hazardous item - a name is a property of a single hazardous item ... if you need more than one hazardous substance, this is not the place to use "0..n", it has to be at a level "higher" in the model by repeating the ASBIE to Hazardous Item - proposed: keep cardinality 0..1 unless it is necessary to express more than one name for a given single hazardous item
DEN: Item. Origin_ Address - this was already "0..n" in UBL 2.0 as "Item. Origin_ Address. Address" DEN: Transport Equipment. Referenced_Consignment Identifier. Identifier- this change shouldn't be based on language but on the possibility that a single instance of Transport Equipment needs multiple references to consignments ... is that true?
Further,DEN of Status.Text has no UBL name (row 778 of Jon's TSC analysis. Please remove entry
I am guessing this is an inadvertent corruption of the row in the spreadsheet because UBL2.1PRD2 includes a "Status. Text" construct:
DEN of SpecialTransportRequirements (row 813) has a misspelling in the term Requirements. Correct spelling.
Well spotted. But is this not also another candidate for "0..n"? PRD2 has it as "0..1" and the definition certainly implies that it is a prose field. And as a field for prose, it should accommodate multiple languages:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd2-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocuments-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-2045 I don't see it in your list of suggested changes for "0..n". I hope this helps. . . . . . . . . Ken -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal