NDR editing questions for consideration

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

Fellow UBL TC members,

As I posted yesterday, I have a first committee specification draft 
for the UBL NDR:

  https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=54824

Here are some questions from a TC member received off list for us to consider:

 - in the terms and definitions section 1.1.2 there are some 
abbreviations; these abbreviations are found in section 1.1.3; should 
they be expanded in section 1.1.2 because the reader hasn't yet read 1.1.3?
   - I've left the document as it is because in my opinion an 
abbreviation such as ABIE is such a basic principle of CCTS that the 
reader will know what it is or will learn quickly enough what it is 
that we don't need to duplicate the abbreviation expansion

 - section 2 sets the stage for how the TC committee works with and 
applies the NDR; the reviewer suggests that this section is not appropriate
   - in my opinion section 2 is very important as it documents how 
the distributed UBL artefacts were created; the "intermediate" 
genericode files are part of the distribution; the schemas are 
created from the genericode files

 - section 3.1.4 documents the support of extensions and how it is 
not up to these NDR to dictate how extensions are create; the 
reviewer suggests we should dictate how they are created
   - I think we will be doing this in the new governance document 
and that the NDR says enough about extension metadata and how the 
extension point is used

 - section 3.2.1 lists the document ABIEs in UBL 2.1; the reviewer 
suggests the list should be removed
   - I think this brings up the whole discussion of all UBL 2.1 
examples in this document:  since these NDRs document all 2.x and not 
just 2.1 should 2.1 examples be removed?  I think not, as one of the 
purposes of this specification is to document what was done for UBL 
2.1; perhaps all we need to do is emphasize that examples are all 
from UBL 2.1 and that subsequent releases will have additional 
information not found in this document (since we don't want to revise 
the NDR if the rules don't change ... and we hope they don't); if the 
rules do change and we have a 3.1 or a 4.0, then we can document the 
most up-to-date version of UBL at that time

 - section 4.1.4 has the rules regarding what information is 
maintained for each kind of BIE ... the reviewer suggests examples be 
added ... is it suitable to add examples here, or should I embellish 
section 4.2.4 with examples taken from UBL 2.1?  Since section 4.2.4 
already exists to illustrate 4.1.4 I am not keen to add examples to 4.2.4.

 - similarly the reviewer suggests examples for 7.1.7 and 7.1.8 ... 
I think the examples from UBL 2.1 would be appropriate in sections 
7.2.7 and 7.2.8 and not have them in the rules section


Please let me know your thoughts of what of the above I should 
include in Draft 02.

Thanks!

. . . . . . . Ken

--
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Free 5-hour lecture:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/video.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd.             http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
G. Ken Holman                    mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile:       http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about |
Legal business disclaimers:     http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com