Re: [ubl] Groups - genericode & XSD (genericode-and-xsd.zzz) uploaded

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[abcoates@londonmarketsystems.com:]

| > Is it our intention to provide XML code list formats for the current UBL  
| > 1.0 code lists?
| 
| Good question.  I hadn't thought about it.  From my point of view,
| I would be happy enough to support both the 1.0 and 2.0 code
| lists, if people thought it was worthwhile to do so.

Here's the ideal setup for the user:

   1. All of our class 1 code lists in UBL 1.0 enum format

   2. All of the class 2 code lists referenced in UBL documents in
      the new generic code instance format (I don't think we ever
      did provide all of these, did we?)

   3. A script that produces enum format from instance format

   4. Generated enum versions of all the class 2 code lists using
      the script in #3

   5. An out-of-the-box first pass validation driver that
      validates any instance against all of the code lists in enum
      format

   6. A script that produces SCH from instance format

   7. Generated SCH versions of all the class 2 code lists using
      the script in #6

   8. Generated .xsl files for each of the SCH files in #7

   9. An out-of-the-box two-stage validation driver that validates
      any instance against all of the code lists

   10. A sample out-of-the-box two-stage validation that
      illustrates how this approach supports the implementation of
      business rules in the second validation pass

The question is how close we can come to this and still meet our
deadlines.  Looks to me like we have to work out an added row in
the schedule and see how this fits.

Jon