Re: CCTS review

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

I will copy ths to the list in case anyone has more to add.

As I said in my previous comments.  This issue comes down to two points:

1. The majority of my original concerns came down to using a different set 
   of NDRs. But as we plan to pick up ATG2 CCT schemas for UBL 2.0 this is a 
   no-brainer.  The names will inevitably change for some elements and some attributes.

2. The remaining issues relate to choice of XSD datatypes.  It is 
   important that UBL and ATG2 use the same XSD datatypes so that anyone 
   can map from one to the other.
   I have reviewed the schemas sent by Mark last month and ATG2 have 
   adopted the same types as UBL.  That's the good news.
   The only problem is that ATG2 have implemented code sets in their 
   schemas.  This means that ATG2  core component types are more restricted 
   that UBL ones.  So even though semantically and structurally a UBL 
   measurement code is the same as an ATG2 one, UBL will allow any value and 
   ATG2 will not. Similarly, ATG2 have also fixed the xsd:boolean on 
   Indicator types to be either "true" or "false".  UBL 
   uses the unrestricted xsd:boolean, which i think also allows "0" and "1" and 
   maybe "TRUE" and "FALSE" but you need to check the XSD specs.
   There is not much we can do about this and in reality i don't think it 
   will be a problem with new implementations but it may be for those using 
   UBL 1.* and trying to upgrade.   UBL users will just has to accept that in UBL 2.0 
   the values for some attributes will be restricted.

The second issue also preempts UBL code list mechanism but I am not sure that is feedback to ATG2 - more for UBL interest.



jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>Hello Tim,
>
>In today's plenary, MarkC conveyed an official request from ATG2
>for a UBL review of their proposed CCTS schemas.  In discussing
>where to put this on the agenda, we realized that the only
>reviewer who really mattered is you.  Would it be possible for you
>to review the proposed schemas (appended to Mark's recent posting
>of the proposed ATG NDRs) and discuss your findings with us some
>time this week?  I'd be happy to arrange the schedule around your
>availability.
>
>Jon
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
(coming soon from MIT Press)
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476