[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: NDR 2 observations
Hi folks, I have three questions in this note for which I would like to get feedback from committee members. During the Atlantic call I brought up two issues of the NDR 2 document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/22992/UBL-NDR-2-20070207.pdf (1) Code lists - chapter 6 This chapter does not describe the meta data information items we have used for CodeType and IdentifierType. Someone using the NDRs to convert spreadsheets to schemas would not be guided in the meta data to use. Now this might be okay ... do we want to leave open to implementers of UBL NDRs the chance for them to use their own choices of attribute meta data for code list and identifer information items, or do we want to document those information items as we have included them in our schemas (which might lead implementers to feel the need to copy their use)? The comments currently in the chapter are accurate with respect to the *valiation* of information items based on code lists and identifiers using enumerated lists of values, but given the role of the NDR to direct the synthesis of schemas from spreadsheets, I think two questions need to be asked: (Q-1a) - should we document the meta data components we are declaring for code lists and identifiers in our schemas? (I think we should) (Q-1b) - should we indicate the meta data components we are using necessarily must be implemented or are they merely an exemplar that implementers can choose to follow or choose to craft for themselves with their own choices of meta data components? (I think I can go either way ... mandate it if we want some level of document conformance or don't mandate it if all we are providing is schema design guidance) (2) Minor versioning - chapter 3.6 I put out some new ideas on the table in August of last year in Montréal regarding minor versioning and I would like to discuss these in Manhattan. These ideas were very well received by Mikkel's staff during a briefing in Denmark and I think are worthy of consideration for us to follow. It is my goal to write these up in detail before Manhattan. Since we haven't yet released a minor version, and the NDR 2.0 document is supposed to reflect what we *have* done (not necessarily what we are going to do since we can revise the NDR when we revise UBL), should we remove some of the description of minor versioning in the document and replace them with something along the lines of "a revision to these NDRs will include minor versioning rules"? Jon pointed out that we cannot change the list of rules as the list of rules was published for UBL 2.0. A quick review of the existing [VER*] rules indicates they are all being followed for UBL 2.0 (good thing!) but might have to be modified slightly in an NDR 2.1 for UBL 2.1 ... not sure ... it depends on whether one equates the version of a schema with the version of the document element of that schema ... don't worry, I hope to make this all clear in my upcoming contribution to the Manhattan meeting. My concern is that other implementers of NDR 2.0 may publish minor revisions of their work and their approaches may differ from what we decide to do in NDR 2.1 for UBL 2.1. (Q-2) - should we touch chapter 3.6 at all or leave it as is until an NDR 2.1 accurately reflects what we eventually decide to do for UBL 2.1? Thank you for your opinions on these questions! . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and training G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]