Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements
Eve,
Comments inline -
> The proposal (which did get adopted; Mavis will be following
> up with the
> minutes soon) does not depend on the RTs being identical to
> the CCTs. It
> seems to me that there is a crude implied inheritance
> mechanism at work
> here, with the CCT Numeric.Type being an ancestor of several
> of the RTs!
Right. They are not identical. There is already a relationship table (See Table 6-3 in Section 6.1.3.3)
>
> Since the RTs are more expressive and since the TC committed
> to maintaining
> a clear list of the RTs UBL uses (recognizing that we may
> need to add some due
> to the syntax-specific nature of our work or for other
> reasons), it seems safe
> to stick with RTs as part of our naming scheme. The CCTs
> could end up being
> referenced only in the dictionary documentation, and even
> then, if the CCTs
> are less expressive, RTs work better there too.
Agreed.
>
> I wonder, though, if it would be handy for us to explicitly
> keep track of the
> RT-to-CCT correspondence even after we start adding a few new RTs.\
We may even have additional CCT proposals to make to CEFACT depending on what RTs we decide we need.
Mark
