Subject: Draft new Additional Document Constraints
From Section 4 of the hub document, titled Additional Document Constraints In addition to the UBL 2.1 document constraints formally expressed by the schemas in Section 3, "UBL 2.1 Schemas", UBL mandates several other rules governing conformant UBL 2.1 instances that cannot be expressed using W3C Schema.These additional UBL document rules, addressing instance validation, character encoding, and empty elements, are specified below.During the TC call earlier today, it was suggested that a couple new constraints be added:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201211/msg00038.htmlLooking back at NDRs as far as December 2009 there appear to have only been up to 6 "IND" rules, so these two new ones are numbered "IND7" and "IND8".
Below is the first draft of these new rules to be considered for the hub document. Please post your comments and suggestions. My worry is that this rule is too general and may inadvertently trip on some elements that are meant to be expressed with multiple element instances (though I thought that from a modelling perspective this is obviated by the technique we used for "Address Line. Line").
I've tried to be brief, but sufficiently descriptive, in the background for the rules and the expression of the rules. Feel free to suggest any alternatives.
. . . . . . . . Ken 4.4 Natural language text elementsThroughout the UBL document model there are a number of natural language text elements, such as "Note" and "Description", in which prose information is expressed. Such elements are of type Text, though not exclusively as there are other Text fields that are not for natural language text, such as "Address Line. Line". Natural language text elements are repeatable. For example, the Note element is repeatable and all sibling Note elements are adjacent and are under a common parent element.
The repeatable nature of natural language is not intended to capture the prose concept of paragraphs or any other kind of compartmentalized subset of content. Rather, the repeatable nature is solely intended to capture the same information in different natural languages. For example, an English description and a French description distinguish exactly two sibling Description elements, even if either or both descriptions are comprised of multiple paragraphs.
UBL prohibits ambiguous expression of sibling natural language elements by imposing the following constraints:
[IND7] Where two or more sibling Text elements of the same name exist in a document, no two can have the same languageID attribute value. [IND8] Where two or more sibling Text elements of the same name exist in a document, no two can have the languageID attribute absent. -- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal