Subject: RE: [ubl] Partial UBL 1.0 build (11 April)
> | 6.2.2 > | > | - The use of both the terms 'specialised' and 'uspecialised' and > | 'qualified' and 'unqualified' is extremely confusing here. > | I did a search through ccts, and could not find either the term > | 'Qualified Data Type' nor the term 'Unqualified Data Type'. > | The Unspecialised Datatype section says this term is 'specified' > | by ccts; the Specialised Datatype section says this term > is 'defined > | in CCTS'. However, as I mentioned, I couldn't find the > term in ccts, > | so I think the accuracy of these statements should be checked. > | > | CCTS does talk about a 'Qualifier Term', which is defined > as a word > | or name (uncapitalized). Therefore, uncapitalizing 'qualified' or > | 'unqualified' would at least help keep that term from conflicting > | as much with the use of the term 'specialised' in the names, but > | explaining a bit more what is meant would also help, since people > | are going to go to the referenced CCTS and not find these > terms there. There is no specific use of the term in CCTS at this point for qualified or unqualified anything - just as you won't find qualified datatype, you won't find qualified ABIE. You will find however the use of qualifiers for Datatypes is allowed. There was however agreement by CCTS participants that this was an oversight and would be corrected in 2.1. Having said that, clearly qualifiers are allowed by rule [D14] "The Dictionary Entry Name of a Data Type shall consist of a Representation Term-preceded by Qualifier Term(s) as necessary -followed by a dot, a space character, and the term Type. The space character shall separate words in multi-word Qualifier Terms and Representation Terms. Each Qualifier Term shall be followed by an underscore. To allow spell checking of the words in the Dictionary Entry Name, a space character shall follow the underscores after Qualifier Terms." In my opinion, we made a mistake when we avoided the term Qualified and Unqualified Datatypes. We did so to avoid name collision with the XSD concept of qualified and unqualified names. We may want to state the reason why we are using the specialised/unspecialised terms. > | - Specialised Datatypes section uses the term 'facets' > | ('... such as facets.'), so perhaps we need an XSD2 > reference here? > > I don't think so. The whole thing assumes some familiarity with > XSD terminology. Agree > > | 6.4 Schema Dependencies > | > | - Figure 2 shows '<< import >>' for all the schemas except the CCP. > | Shouldn't the lines going into this module show an << import >> > | as well? > > Tim? NDR requires all schema modules (other than internal schema modules) to be in their own namespace. Assuming we followed that rule, then CCP must also be an import. (BTW, UN/CEFACT will not use the CCP module).