Re: [ubl] What CCT and DT should look like - models and mapping to XSD

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

These spreadsheets look good and right to me.

Could we have the Specialised DataTypes model looking a close to this as
possible
I wonder, with codelist enumerations still in the separate text files.

Michael has pointed out that we now can add the definitions to the text
files too and
will, hopefully provide us with a suitable format for doing so. LCSC will
therefore need to agree these definitions as soon as possible.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: [ubl] What CCT and DT should look like - models and mapping to XSD


> From all the discussions going on about CCT/UDT/SDT schemas, i think it
> is time to take stock and consolidate our approach.
>
> My proposal is that we drive the schema generation from the data model
> (as Michael has been advocating).  Currently we have only the
> Specialised Data Types for Codes modelled this way, but it is clear we
> need to do this for the Core Component Types and Unspecialised Datatypes
> as well.
>
> Therefore, based on the discussions we have been having,  i have
> prepared draft spreadsheets for how UBL should implement both CCTs and
> UDTs.  This includes their correct UBL Name/attribute names and their
> mapping onto XSD datatypes.
>
> We need to get agreement on these so we can generate the correct
> schemas.  Can I ask for comments as soon as possible.
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php
.