[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
Tony, I think that your excellent contributions should fit into the structure of the document we had. There is no need for a ubl-specific part and a non-ubl-specific. Just a data model and an XML Schema mapping. The concept is to converge efforts toward a solution set -- not parallel solutions. To that end, I have tried to remove the UBL specific references from the requirements and have adopted your rewording. Then, I put your theory of code list modeling into the introductory portion of the document. I needed to merge your copy by hand because you worked from an older version than the current. There were a couple of your new requirements that I thought were part of existing requirements and so I either discarded them or added them to the existing descriptions. I also preserved the original numbering since no one will be able to compare requirements with the renumbering in your draft. You need to check if I captured all requirements and comments correctly. We need to gain some agreement on the actual data model and how its presented in section 4 followed by the schema representation in section 5. How do you feel about my edits to your proposed edits? Can we work on this document from this point to do the edits you suggested would be necessary next? ____________________________________
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]