Subject: Fwd: Public Comment on NDR CD
The following came in through the UBL comment form on 17 October (U.S.). I'll be asking in today's call whether anyone else saw this; OASIS just changed the comment list to read-only, and I'm wondering whether they disabled distribution entirely. Jon ================================================================== Date: 18 Oct 2004 03:59:07 -0000 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com Subject: [ubl-comment] Public Comment Comment from: firstname.lastname@example.org General Comments re: OASIS UBL NDR (15 September 2004 version): - Should list all namespace prefixes in a table which also lists the URI. - It would be helpful to generate lists of elements and types collected by namespace (generated from the schemas), a la XML Spy and EDIFIX. - Should collect all acronyms used in this document in one place. Some are used before they are defined, such as LCSC on line 1139. See also line 188. - It seems rather hypocritical that UBL and CCTS which espouse the notion of severely limiting the number of acronyms to be used in schema should themselves introduce dozens of acroynms which are only relevant to these 2 documents. - Each of the 147 NDR rules should be followed by an example, or at least provide examples for those that are less than obvious. - The well-known "xsd" prefix is used very inconsistently throughout the NDR. It should only be used to indicate elements from the W3C XML Schema language. Suggestion is to verify that every use of "xsd:" is immediately followed by an XSD element name. (Examples of incorrect uses appear below.) It would help to used "XSD" when referring to the XML Schema language and its constructs (i.e., "XSD datatypes"). - XML is case sensitive. All elements in the XSD language use lower camelcase. Therefore, the initial letter after the colon separator should be lowercase. - The "xsd" namespace prefix should never be capitalized. Audit all section headings. - The NDR is inconsistent in its use of fixed width fonts to distinguish elements from text. Suggest auditing every colon-separated term. Specific Comments re: OASIS UBL NDR (15 September 2004 version): - line 294: xCBL is never defined. - footnote on p. 10 - Reference should be to CCTS 2.01, Nov. 2003. - line 349: version 2.01 - 390: Are all BBIEs complexTypes? - 400: Inconsistent British vs. US spelling of Specialised vs. Unspecialized - 423: Figure 2-3 in the UN/CEFACT NDR is more clear than this one re: XSD artifacts - 428: wrong font used - 443-447: These are NOT element names in the XSD language: xsd:schemaModule, xsd:Datatype - 531: Example out of context, so it does not illustrate the point it follows. - 729: Undefined: <subtype> [see also following page] - 760: Semantics: you don't "release" a namespace, you release a language - 769-788: Inconsistent use of URN syntax. Is it ":-" or "-"? - 886: Namespace prefixes in Figure 3.1 do not match those in line 896 - 918: Figure 3-3 has inconsistent case conventions. Also, shouldn't the 3 modules in lower right also have import arrows? - 972: "Ed Note" needs to be resolved - 981: Should be xsd:complexType with l/c 'c'. This mistake appears repeatedly, such as on page 36. - 1044: "xsd:facet" is not an XSD element; "facet" is an XSD concept - 1065: Inconsistent British vs. US spelling of Specialised vs. Unspecialized - 1130: Are the run-time schemas truly "normative"? - 1136ff: The documentation requirements for UBL are extremely onerous. Unless free tools are made available that generate complete documentation from the spreadsheet, it is doubtful that most developers will provide this level of documentation. If it is not easily generated, it is certainly to become out-of-date. - 1146: Term "Datatype" is confusing throughout the NDR since it has multiple meanings in different contexts. Here, it seems to refer to xsd:complexType. - 1196: Should this be BBIE rather than ABIE? What does "not-applicable" mean? - 1289: e.g., SOAP - 1294: What is the reasoning behind this bullet? - 1300: and attribute groups - 1314: To make this rule useful, NDR should include a long list of examples of terms with US vs. Oxford spelling differences. Especially true since even the NDR has inconsistencies in this rule. - 1328: The period character is legal in a XML name - 1333: Need to understand heuristic for what acronyms and abbreviations to use. - 1338: How can Appendix B be a "living document" unless it is separately reachable by a URI? - 1344: Why isn't "US" part of the acronyms? For that matter, why aren't all country codes? - 1386: "ccts" should be "CCTS" - 1406: How are BBIE Properties distinguished from BBIEs, since a BBIE is essentially an ISO 11179 Property Term? - 1418ff: All examples should show both the before and after. - 1467: Should this be "xsd:simpleType" ? - 1532: typo: AggregateBuinssInformationEntities - 1534: Why is ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty abbreviated? - 1599: "Core Components Specification" missing "Technical" - 1693: What is a "cct:NameType"? - 1749: There is no XSD element called "xsd:built-in". Audit rest of NDR. - 1781-1795: Rules are worded awkwardly. How about something like this: "The 'type' attribute of each CCT:SupplmentaryComponent...." - 1800: and "not permitted". - 1807-1828: Section numbering is incorrect. 5.2.1 is empty and 5.2.6 is wrong. - 1835: [ELD4] needs an example - 1888: There is no XSD element called "xsd:SchemaExpression". Define term. - 1901: What is "DatatypeSchema"? - 1969-1973: "XSD Simple Type" used 3 different ways in these lines. - 1987: Need example.