Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: Comments on combined message Spreadsheet

As I thought I said in my cover e-mail, I feel strongly that the tabulated changes need to be made before distribution. They are the result of a QA check, and without them I believe the distribution material is devalued.

I am ready and willing to make these changes. Apart from typos and cut&paste mistakes which are minor but appear careless if we do not correct them, they fall into three categories:-

1) Item identification where the definition is bad and misleading (5 places)
2) Some Identifiers where the formula in hidden column L was corrupted (4 places)
3) Loss of specialisation in re-use (13 areas, affecting more than one line)

The third is the most significant, but I have done 95% of what is needed, as an experiment which can easily be slotted into the combined spreadsheet. I believe this is of absolutely vital importance, otherwise we will have completed side-stepped any 'context' whatsoever, and lose credibility! 

I have also made some general comments that are intended for longer term consideration. Comment 1 reiterates the problem of losing specialisation, primarily to stress we can specialise more, and also that we need to consider other specialising factors such as cardinality and definitions (comment 2). 
Comment 3 contains a question to which I want an answer, but does not affect distribution (unless Gunther needs the message spreadsheets updated in order to generate XSDs. Gunther, please comment?). Comments 4 and 5 are less urgent 'tidying up' things.

My original attachments are included (1) the comments (2) the experiment in annotating with 'where used' re specialising re-used components.

regards...

Mike Adcock
Standards & Security Unit
APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
Mercury House, Triton Court
14 Finsbury Square
London EC2A 1LQ
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
e-mail: