[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6
My recollection agrees with Anne's -- we decided that this is something that can wait until 1.1. Jon Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:40:32 -0700 From: Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com> CC: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org 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. > > > 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]