OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: Incorporated definitions for UBL 2.1 review


It looks like (1) I had a problem in my merge processes and (2) there is still a problem with the definition files.

A quick review of these revised links suggests that my problem is now gone, but the subcommittee issue of the definition file is still unaddressed.

At 2013-01-06 23:39 -0500, I wrote:
Except for the problems identified below, you can find the draft of the proposed UBL 2.1 definitions for all models here:
...
... or for PSC models only here:
...
... or for TSC models only here:
...

Please use the following links for the definition review of all models:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47829/#Summary

... or for PSC models only here:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47830/#Summary

... or for TSC models only here:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47831/#Summary

Please forgive my oversight in the files of the earlier post. This underscores the importance of committee members reviewing the artefacts I'm creating for any faults.

As for the subcommittee oversight, check this out:

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47829/#t-CommonLibrary-781
Definition:  "New definition is OK"

At 2012-12-19 11:14 -0500, I wrote:
UBL 2.1 PRD3 DEFINITION REVIEW

   Status of PSC definition review

      Proposed definitions are posted:
      https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-psc/201212/msg00001.html

      Peter - would members please review column J of new definitions
              for the proper use of English and grammar?

   Status of TSC definition review

      Proposed definitions are posted:
      https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-tsc/201212/msg00011.html

Looking at the PSC definition file, row 771 does, indeed, have "New definition is OK" in column "J" as the new definition.

I cannot programmatically check for incorrectly written new definitions, thus my process is incorporating column "J" as the process was defined by Jon. When "J" is empty I use "D", unless it is empty, in which case the original definition is unchanged (though it is confirmed as not having been changed in the database).

I do not have the time to produce all these artefacts and check that subcommittee submissions follow the guidelines.

I ask that PSC review their definitions file and resubmit it when it has been checked. Although I haven't come across any problems with the TSC definitions, it might help just to do a quick review, please, for any problems that may lie hidden there.

Thank you!

. . . . . . . . . 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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]