[ubl-lcsc] ISSUE: Nesting and Containership within Schema

Okay Library Content Group, time to get to 
work.  This is an invitation to discuss, keep this thread going to help us 
find resolution.  Thanks.

 

ISSUE IS:  The 
structure of the business documents within the library seems unusually flat by 
XML, OO, and database standards. 

 

**********Comments**********************

NDR 
Comment:  While we're not against the use of sequences, we suspect 
that developers may find it more useful to have collections of elements that are 
"rolled up" into container elements at an intermediate level (for example, rows 
30-31 for country sub- entities).  
The classic chunking standard for human memory is 7 +/- 2, and standard 
operating procedure for software developers and database designers is to use 
this standard.

 

We 
also note that there's a lot of optionality of elements.  For example, 
there's nothing required in Address.  Are there interoperability 
consequences to this?  

If the context methodology is sufficient, is it better to 
allow optional elements to be made required or better to allow removal of 
elements? [Row 22]

Would intermediate containers help this situation at all 
(e.g., you can make the container optional and the contents required)? How is 
the "sweet spot" determined on this?  
As another example, we know that there will be other kinds of things that 
we want to consider line items, but each kind will have a different 
combination/cardinality of contents.  
We want to have a rule that the structures have the maximum number of 
required contents, and where splitting the structure into multiples will help, 
it should generally be done.  

Example: 
Line items contain at least quantity (1), part number (2), and description (3). 
In certain stages of the process, they also contain price information (4), tax 
information (5), and shipping information (6).  So you have really four kinds of line 
item: order, invoice, shipping, and catalog.  These should be considered different 
rows.

 

 

Our 
comment from the last face to face:   We agree.  The usage of Optional and Mandatory 
elements needs to be revisited on a whole.  
This needs to be captured in our methodology.  

 

Arofan has written a containership document that has 
not been finished yet.  It is attached.

 

Tim's methodology paper addresses this also, you can 
also use that as reference.

 

 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lisa 
Seaburg
AEON Consulting
Website: http://shell.gmi.net/~xmlgeek/
Email:  

Phone: 
662-562-7676
Cellphone: 662-501-7676

 

"Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural 
Stupidity"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Attachment:
p-gregory-containers-02.doc

Description: MS-Word document