Hi Sue,
Thanks for looking these over!
From your response, though, I can't quite tell if you did a QA pass
over the values where we are not using lists automatically generated
from EF. Would you could check the correctness of the ones that EF is
not generating, since no one else has looked at them, I don't believe,
and also that the 'name' value as generated by EF is what we expect
(based on the content of the delivered files?)
Other responses inline.
Sue Probert wrote:
>AllowanceChargeReasonCode - codes are from UNCL 4465 D03A - OK to use full
>list from EF.
>
Yes, this is what was in the recent content/name value files - same as
what was made ready for Beta - utilizing the full list. (Note that the
UN name for this code list (4465) is 'Adjustment Reason Description Code'.)
>ChannelCode - codes are from UNCL 3155 D03A - OK to use full list from EF
>
Yes, this is what was in the recent content/name value files - same as
what was made ready for Beta - utilizing the full list. (Note that the
UN name for this code list (3155) is 'Communication Address Code
Qualifier'.)
>PaymentMeansTypeCode - codes are from UNCL 4461 D03A - OK
>
Yes, this is what was in the recent content/name value files - same as
what was made ready for Beta - utilizing the full list. (Note that the
UN name for this code list (4461) is 'Payment Means Code'.)
>(CargoTypeCode - codes are from UNCL 7085 D03A - OK but this code list
>appears to have disappeared?)
>
Yes, gone, as per Tim.
>CurrencyCode - ISO 4217 - OK to use full list from EF
>
Yes, agrees with what we've done.
>AcknowledgementResponseCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names now added
>LatitudeDirectionCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names now added
>LongitudeDirectionCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names now added
>
Not sure what you mean here when you say 'names now added'. Does that
mean the UBL codes are now in EF?
>DocumentStatusCode - 4 codes made up by UBL - names now added (UNCL 1225
>could be used?)
>LineStatusCode - 5 codes made up by UBL - names now added (UNCL 1229 could
>be used?)
>
No, we don't want to use 1225 nor 1229. We looked at these closely and
they did not have the values Stephen felt were needed and in addition
the meaning of the codes in those lists related to a different context
to the one a UBL user would be trying to convey.
>ChipCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names not yet added
>OperatorCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names not yet added
>SubstitutionStatusCode - 2 codes made up by UBL - names not yet added
>
Will they be added? All the UBL codes that are made up by UBL that did
not have 'name' values I added the 'name' values in the latest delivery
(yesterday). I just made these, though, so woudl definitely like
Stephen's review of those. They are: documentstatuscode,
linestatuscode, acknowledgementresponsecode, chipcode,
latitudedirectioncode, longitudedirectioncode (especially these last two
as the definition talks about them being described by 'degree, minute,
and second' - do we do that?), operatorcode, substitutionstatuscode.
>Tim and Anne, do you agree with this?
>
It appears as though you are simply replacing some of the coded
content/name value files with the exact same information in the schemas,
as generated automagically from EF, and, although it would have been
nice to know that earlier so I didn't have to spend the time creating
those files, it still seems like a great thing! So does this mean that
once the values are added to EF we will not need any external files? If
so, is there still some way to document these for those users that may
not be using EF to know what the value/names should be? How do the
content/name value pairs appear in the output? I assume they are in the
individual code list schemas, correct, which should be perfectly fine I
would imagine.
Thanks for your review/help!
-A
>
>regards
>
>Sue
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
