RE: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas

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

RE: Version element in documentation:

> it appears we are missing this parameter.  but shouldn't it be 
> automatically taken from the build number (e.g. "1.0-draft-9.1") ?

I would say 'yes'.

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

RE: use="optional":

> yes, consistency is what we need.  i seem to recall that in other cases 
> (minOccurs??) we said we would not rely on defaults and explicitly 
> define attributes - is that true?

I have no strong feelings on this either way; however, it is nice to explicitly state attribute values for those people who may not know, offhand, what the default value is.



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 19 12
To: Grimley Michael J NPRI
Cc: UBL List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas




Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:

>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?
>
>=============================================
>
i agree we should be consistent.  i assume that when we use a built in 
xsd type that format is not only redundant but potentially harmful.  
therefore it should be removed in the UDT.

>
>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?
>
>  
>
yes, consistency is what we need.  i seem to recall that in other cases 
(minOccurs??) we said we would not rely on defaults and explicitly 
define attributes - is that true?

>Thanks,
>Mike Grimley 
>
>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.
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160