[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-tsc] Re: Model changes for Transport
Ken, Thanks for your effort in reviewing this. I agree with all your comments and have annotated below. Soon I will send you my proposed final Model changes for Transport as well as my proposed final common library edit for TSC. Andy -----Original Message----- From: ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:ubl-tsc@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of G. Ken Holman Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:08 AM To: UBL TransportSubCommittee; Audun.Vennesland@sintef.no Subject: [ubl-tsc] 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. *****AMS: Agree, also Tim has commented that it should be 0..1 and I tweaked the definition slightly to reflect intent that it is one identifier for a set of codes. 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 *****AMS:agree to keep as 0..1 with slight tweak to the definition to reflect better the situation. DEN: Item. Origin_ Address - this was already "0..n" in UBL 2.0 as "Item. Origin_ Address. Address" *****AMS: agree, already 0..n so no change. 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? *****AMS: agree, Tim also agrees that o..n is based on the possibility that a single instance of Transport Equipemnt needs multiple refs to consignments. >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: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd2-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-1738 http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd2-UBL-2.1/mod/summary/reports/UBL-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#d-CommonLibrary-1746 *****AMS: agree, this should be removed. Tim agrees. >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-AllDocum ents-2.1.html#t-CommonLibrary-2045 I don't see it in your list of suggested changes for "0..n". *****AMS: agree the spelling should be corrected and the cardinality made 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-tsc-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-tsc-help@lists.oasis-open.org ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5451 - Release Date: 12/11/12
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]