Mark,
The decision was made, in
Washington, to add the 'Format' supplementary component after it was
determined that none of the attributes/facets of the xsd:built-in datatypes
would be available due to 'our' types being defined as an empty Restriction
of the built-in type.
Mike
Grimley
Michael,
We initially
agreed with your recommendations, but after further discussion we agreed that
we would be better off to stay with the CCT schema module as jointly agreed to
with OAG and UN/CEFACT. That schema modules leverage the xsd:built-in
datatypes where appropriate and will give us much better credibility in the
XML community at large. Having said that, I understand that the
selective group is making changes to Washington decisions so I can't really
say what the final answer is. However, I will tell you
that unnecessary deviations from joint agreements with other standards
bodies will ensure that UBL will completely
stand alone in
its implementation of CCTS, and will ensure that its support base will be
limited.
Mark
Ooooh, I seem to remember that
the NDR discussion in Washington was just the other way round and
that the group disagreed with my 'simple' CCTS approach.
Now, I'm confused.
Stephen: help
Michael
Greetings,
As mentioned in a previous email, and not
included below, the latest
CCT schema still has 'DateTime', 'Indicator' and 'Numeric' types defined
as simple types (with a *Restriction* on the built in type).
I believe we had agreed in
Washington that they would be redefined to conform to the CCTS. That is,
the required supplementary component 'Format' would be added to the
definition of each.
I
wasn't able to make yesterday's meeting (until the end, anyway) and Jon
has made it very clear that that is where the decisions are made; however,
this involves CCTS conformance and, if I am not mistaken, the decision was
made in joint session with Tim and Steve on the phone, so there was good
representation of all concerned SCs.
Thank You,
Mike
Grimley
|