RE: [ubl] Minutes Atlantic Call Sept 22 2004

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Stephen wrote:


>In line with my action item I've just looked briefly at the UBL 1.0
Schemas
> and I can confirm there's no problem regarding the first of CheeKai's
comments. 
>This was the one I was most concerned about. The Amounts do use the
UBL_Amount 
>type but these are now defined as such in the cbc Schema so the cac
refernces now 
>point not straight to the sdt definition but to the cbc which points to
the sdt. This is as we
> intended so there is, to my mind, no mistake. I'll look at the other
items later and respond 
>on ubl-dev. Still, very grateful for this extra QA from Chee-Kai.

Assuming the sdt points to the udt, then Stephen is correct.  As long as
there is a chain of derivation that leads back to udt:amount.type as the
first base type then we are in conformance with the NDR.