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] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation


 
I misspoke. The facets are available, but some were under the impression that 'Format' was a facet of these types and it is not.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Grimley Michael J NPRI [mailto:GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil]
Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2004 11 46
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation

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
 
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2004 11 33
To: Michael Dill; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation

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 
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:12 AM
To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: AW: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation

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
 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Grimley Michael J NPRI [mailto:GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. März 2004 15:02
An: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: RE: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation

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



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