OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ubl] Specialised DataTypes Schema Module


 
FWIW: I also agree.
 
We cannot constantly reconsider (or simply ignore) past decisions if we expect to make any progress here.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Stig Korsgaard [mailto:STK@Finansraadet.dk]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2004 07 16
To: CRAWFORD, Mark
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl] Specialised DataTypes Schema Module

Mark has a very good point here. I strongly support his comments!
 
Honestly to me deviating from already agreed decisions seems only to prolong the release of final work on a continued basis!
 

Best Regards

Stig Korsgaard
M.Sc.E Standardisation Manager
Tel:    +45 3370 1083
Cell:   +45 2121 8234
Mail:   stk@finansraadet.dk

Danish Bankers Association
Amaliegade 7
DK-1256 Copenhagen K
Tel:    3370 1000
Fax:    3393 0260
mail@finansraadet.dk
www.finansraadet.dk

-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: 17. marts 2004 12:40
To: Tim McGrath; Stephen Green
Cc: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl] Specialised DataTypes Schema Module

Quite frankly, arguments that "we haven't done it this way before" are wearing very thin.  We agreed to the CCT, UDT, SDT and CLUDT schema modules in January in NDR and reaffirmed it at the F2F in a full TC meeting.  The approach was chosen to ensure that there were logical arrangements of the various datatypes - from the CCT and UDT which provide CCTS conformance to the CLUDT and  SDT schema provides a consistent way to ensure that we have separate and distinct schema modules for all UBL created datatypes. By separating between SDT and UDT, we allow customisers to then create their own SDT schema module.
 
If we deviate from our approach, we run the risk of making our various DT schema's unacceptable to the larger community.  For example - if the CCT schema module does not faithfully represent the CCTS CCTs in their current form, then any party interested in CCTS conformance - such as UN/CEFACT will not support it.  If the UDT schema module has any restrictions above and beyond those in CCTS for supplementary components, then once again any party interested in CCTS conformance will not support it. If we do not maintain a SDT schema module, then we have lost our clear and concise modularity solution.  From my perspective, we should adhere to the agreements made at the F2F.
 

Mark



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]