Re: [ubl] Minutes Atlantic Call Sept 22 2004

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

Chee-Kai has pointed out that the comment is about the annotation.
Apologies; I misunderstood. Apparently there are *annotations* which have
Amount as the datatype rather than UBL-Amount. So, thankfully,
this, I think, could be resolved in 1.1 without breaking backwards compatibility
with regard to instances.

----- Original Message -----
From: <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
To: <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>; <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: [ubl] Minutes Atlantic Call Sept 22 2004


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.


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.