RE: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.

Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper. The argument that we remove container elements because doing so aligns us more closely with the Core Components Technical Specification doesn't hold water for me. Is that argument coming from the fact that the CCTS 1.8 specification failed to explicitly model properties . I believe that shortcoming will be addressed in the 1.85 specification where basic core component properties are modeled, and named -- so you've got a name in the Core Components model that you can use as a source for your element name. Also, I believe association properties will similarly be modeled. It is these association properties, with the appropriate multiplicity/cardinality map, that map nicely onto XML container elements I think. B ill Burcham Sr. Software Architect, Standards and Applied Technology Sterling Commerce , Inc. 469. 524 . 2164