Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas

[Grimley Michael J NPRI <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>]

Greetings,

1)  We are missing a required 'Version' element in the documentation of every datatype. (We seem to be missing it in all the other schemas as well, for datatypes *and* BIEs.)

    I would assume the value would be '1.0' (or some such thing) for everything in the initial release.

=============================================

2)  In the UDT schema, the 'DateTimeType' definition is what I would expect; there is a restriction on cct:DateTimeType that removes the infamous 'format' attribute.
    However, the datatypes with a base of 'cct:IndicatorType' or 'cct:NumericType' define a restriction, but then include the 'format' attribute, which in effect makes it no different than the CCT datatypes.
    Is this what was intended?

=============================================

3)  Minor point: In the CCT schema, the attribute definitions all declare 'use="optional"' even though it is the default value and does not need to be declared. In the UDT schema, 'use="optional"' is *not* declared (except in the restriction of 'cct:IndicatorType'). Do we want/need to be consistent here?


Thanks,
Mike Grimley