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: [ubl] Incorporated definitions for UBL 2.1 review


At 2013-01-07 20:06 -0500, Andrew M Schoka wrote:
From a samping of the incorpsrated definitions, Regarding TSC definitions,
it appears the those rows having a ? in row d, new definition, did not get
the revised Defintion proposed by reviewer provide in column J.  It did pick
up other entries in col J correctly.

Thank you for catching that, Andy ... I missed it. So many of the rows were comprised of only a question mark in column D that I simply filtered those out without realizing that there was viable information in column J.

Let's try again with the definitions found at these links:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47833/#Summary

... or for PSC models only here:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47835/#Summary

... or for TSC models only here:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47834/#Summary

Thank you, again!  I'm glad these artefacts are getting looked at in detail.

(Note that I have preserved below the issue regarding checking the integrity of the definition files)

. . . . . . . . . . Ken

At 2013-01-07 18:02 -0500, I wrote:
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.


--
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]