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] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6


The examples of what Chee-Kai has asked for are in his submission at 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200405/msg00043.html.

However, my recollection is that we decided Chee-Kai's proposal had 
ramifications that we probably didn't want to deal with at this time, 
and although perhaps we should have a rule, this was a 1.1 issue. To 
come to conclusion on this I think we first need to get agreement on 
whether or not a rule is needed at this time.  I thought we decided we 
didn't need one at this time, although this is not clear by the Issues 
List Notes.  Tim/Jon/Stephen/MD were there and may have a different 
recollection.  Then another part of the answer to this question has to 
do with the future schedule of NDR releases: If  a rule is felt to be 
needed, but not right away, can it wait for a subsequent release of the 
NDRs, when we have better clarity of what, if anything, we want a rule 
for (ie. will there be another release of the NDRs before 1.1?).

-A

Stephen Green wrote:

>Mike
>
>I'm pretty sure we decided that this just wasn't happening like
>that. The issue was more with the fact that the end of one word
>didn't reset the (metaphorical) alphabetic order counter to zero
>but treated the first letter of the next word as part of the consideration.
>i.e.
>OrderLine comes after Order and also comes after Ordering
>(not a real example).
>The TC meeting decided that this was the correct understanding
>of alphabetic order.
>So you'd get
>Order then OrderGoods then Ordering then OrderLine
>and not
>Order then OrderGoods then OrderLine then Ordering.
>
>No real change is needed to the above situation.
>
>Case only comes into it because the second word happens to start
>with a capital and the first word ends with a lower case letter.
>
>I hope that makes sense.
>
>I suppose the rule could make this clearer but the matter that
>there needs to be an exception when Type is appended due to
>Schema terminology rather than business semantics (i.e. complex Type)
>is more of a requirement since this is happening when we'd prefer
>that it didn't.
>
>Steve
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Grimley Michael J NPRI" <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>
>To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:32 PM
>Subject: RE: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6
>
>
>  
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>I thought case came into play because someone had pointed out that, if
>>    
>>
>case *is* considered, then "an object with a small 'a' would appear after an
>object with a capital 'Z'. User will consider this as user infriendly and
>will complain for sure." (from comment sheet)
>  
>
>>Thanks,
>>Mike
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk]
>>Sent: Thursday, 15 July 2004 16 14
>>To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At present it is possible to have (and we do have it) in one place
>>    
>>
>AddressLine following Address (quite rightly) and, in the same Schema,
>elsewhere to have AddressLineType preceding AddressType.
>  
>
>>This is because '..Type' is included when deciding the order
>>    
>>
>alphabetically
>  
>
>>- T comes after L.
>>We need a rule to say that Schema-associated terms such as the 'Type'
>>suffix should be ignored when calculating the order (wherever the order is
>>    
>>
>not dictated by the model, e.g. when producing an xsd:sequence).
>  
>
>>(And case isn't really a factor.)
>>
>>That's my recollection of the result of the Pacific call on 1st July.
>>
>>All the best
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Grimley Michael J NPRI" <GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil>
>>To: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 8:47 PM
>>Subject: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>
>>>Disposition states: "Need NDR rule,...".
>>>
>>>This would be a rule stating that case will *not* be considered when
>>>      
>>>
>>alphabetizing schema elements, correct?
>>    
>>
>>>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
>  
>
>>.
>>    
>>
>>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
>.
>  
>
>>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
>.
>  
>
>>    
>>
>
>
>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.
>
>  
>




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