Title: Message
Also,
please do not construe my previous post to indicate that I am an advocate of
these superfluous elements (containers). I am not. But if we are
bound and determined to use them -- I was just making a suggestion as to how we
might do it. :-)
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Burcham, Bill
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:30 PM
To: UBL
NDR
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers
On June 2, 2003,
Chin Chee-Kai
<> wrote:
If an item has multiplicity 1..N,
then it is containable and the
container is 1..1. Think that was
the NDR conclusion earlier on.
The challenge comes from the other
case: Given that the item has
multiplicity 0..N, should the
container be 0..1 or 1..1?
I think in the 1..N case the container element should
have multiplicity 1..1 and the contained element can be minOccurs=1,
maxOccurs=unbounded or whatever.
I
think in the 0..N case the container element should have multiplicity 0..1 and
the contained element can be minOccurs=1, maxOccurs=unbounded or
whatever.
The attached .zip file shows an example. A
person has 2 parents and zero-or-more siblings. I've modeled this as a
Person (global) element of (complex) type Person. A Person has a (local)
Parents element (minOccurs=1, maxOccurs=1) which in turn has a series of
Parent element (minOccurs=2, maxOccurs=2). A Person has a Siblings
element (minOccurs=0, maxOccurs=1) which in turn has a series of Sibling
element (minOccurs=0, maxOccurs=unbounded).
Bill
Burcham
Sr. Software
Architect, Standards and Applied
Technology
Sterling
Commerce, Inc.
469.524.2164
