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] IMPT: Ongoing work items


>
>
>| >H.2.2 Version Element in the Documentation of Every BIE
>| 
>|   > UBL 1.0 assumes that the version number of each UBL BIE is also
>|   > 1.0.  However, as reusable BIEs become available from
>|   > registries and customised libraries, it is possible that BIEs
>|   >may be used outside of their original release.  This may result
>|   > in a requirement to assign a version number to each BIE in
>|   >future versions of UBL.
>| 
>| Absolutely disagree with the inclusion of this in the release.
>| There are no BIEs in the schema.  The versioning is linked to the
>| schema constructs, not the individual BIEs.  When an underlying
>| BIE is changed, it WILL result in a new version of the schema -
>| either major or minor depending on its level of change.
>
>Does anyone see this as a live issue?  Speak up now if you do or
>I'll cut it.
>
>  
>
i must have said more than i meant to here as i thought i was stating mark's intention. The NDR rules talk about a structured annotation for Version in all Data Types, ABIE, BBIE and ASBIEs - that is what this means.

this item was taken from the outcomes from this discussion on this (24 March) were:


>We are missing a required 'Version' element in the
>      documentation of every data type. (We seem to be missing it
>      in all the other schemas as well, for data types *and*
>      BIEs.)
>
>      Disposition: In our initial release, the version number is
>      implied by the version number of the whole set (1.0), so
>      there is no need to include the version number in the
>      documentation for each data type right now.  In 1.1, we will
>      need to decide whether this is a registry requirement or a
>      schema requirement.


I interpreted this as we have the DOC rule in NDR making the Version annotation/documentation optional in 1.0 and up for review later.

I though the issue about whether this is a schema artifact or a conceptual artifact is still open.  That is why it is a future work item. I have no opinion on this, i was just trying to document what was in the notes.


How about?

H.2.2 Version Element in the Documentation of each Datatype and BIE
 
UBL 1.0 assumes that the version number of each UBL datatype and BIE is also
1.0.  However, there is some debate as to whether this is a schema construct artifact or a storage artifact.
The outcome of this decision may result in a requirement to assign a version number in the annotation documentation for each datatype and BIE schema construct.
 



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






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