Re: [ubl] BBIE cardinality issues in the latest document model

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2013-01-07 20:11 +0100, Oriol Bausà Peris wrote:
> See my comments inline. Basically I agree with 
> the first set of text fields, changing them to 
> 0..n, and I do comment in line for the second 
> set of elements that concern the eTendering: In 
> most cases, these textual fields are considered 
> prose as they have to be used in notices and 
> could eventually be in different languages. 
> There are some exceptions and I've pointed at them inline.

Thank you, Oriol.

Again I ask that PSC consider your input into a 
comprehensive set of instructions to me and Arianna.

This way Arianna and I need only follow a single 
set of instructions and not have to track multiple sets of instructions.

I appreciate that you've already started the discussion.

The sooner we get these issues addressed, the 
sooner I'll be able to produce schemas.

. . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
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