Thanks for the comment, Mike. That makes it sound as though our only
choice is #3, with a *requirement* to say what the values are of the
nested SuppComs. But I worry that this could be tricky, and certainly
should involve the LC SC.
It's probably easy in a lot of cases involving Language.Code, because if
we satisfy this with the xml:lang attribute, then it has a known code
list. But what about if we need to add information about the code list
from which a code list agency identifier was taken? (I know this isn't
a real SuppCom from CCTS, but we had two people in our most recent
meeting say that, in practice, they need this field.)
Am I missing something? And can *all* the folks on this list who are
involved in developing the CCTS please weigh in on this matter before I
send my ravings to an official CC list? :-)
Thanks,
Eve
Michael C. Rawlins wrote:
> Actually, I think the problem is much simpler than you lay out here.
> According to the ebXML CC spec, subcomponents are the lowest level
> and don't have subcomponents. However, I can certainly see how you
> could get the impression below from reading the spec, and this is
> one of the points I made when discussing my comments with the editors
> last week. I strongly urge you to forward this directly to Mark Crawford
> and the rest of the editing team to underscore the need to do something
> about the relationship between Representation Terms and Core Component
> Types.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
