MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] NDR Checklist Clarification
From: Chin Chee-Kai <>
To: Tim McGrath <>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:22:26 +0800 (SGT)
Tim & Mark,
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Tim McGrath wrote:
>>6.1.4.3.3 Data Type Rules for Definitions
>>[D6] The definition of a Data Type shall use a structure that is based
>>on the existence
>>of primary and secondary Representation Terms of the associated Core
>>Component Type, and is enhanced by Qualifier Terms.
Thanks, Tim. This [D6] paragraph seems to imply that in
implementations, the Data Type is a function of 4 variables:
- Qualifier primary Representation Term
- primary Representation Term
- Qualifier secondary Representation Term
- secondary Representation Term
and appears consistent with what [D14] describes.
This implies that we could need 4 columns in the spreadsheets.
But Mark is saying primary rep term == secondary rep term
and no such thing as "qualifier rep term". This implies
that we could/must need only 1 column in the spreadsheets.
Can we nail this down quickly?
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email:
http://SoftML.Net/
>>6.1.4.3.4 Rules for Data Type Dictionary Entry Names
>>[D14] The Dictionary Entry Name of a Data Type shall consist of a
>>Representation
>>Term—preceded by Qualifier Term(s) as necessary —followed by a dot, a space
>>character, and the term Type. The space character shall separate words
>>in multi-word
>>Qualifier Terms and Representation Terms. Each Qualifier Term shall be
>>followed by an underscore.
>>To allow spell checking of the words in the Dictionary Entry Name, a
>>space character shall follow
>>the underscores after Qualifier Terms.
>>[Example]
>>Country_ Identifier. Type
>>
>>This would explain why we have this column. It has been in the models
>>and schemas since at least 0p70 - so we have had it for 12 months and it
>>passed reviews, presumably several times. The good news is that we have
>>never found anything worth putting in there, so it is currently always
>>blank.
>>
>>Sounds to me as if the CCTS has two conflicting views on derived
>>Representation Terms - one calling them 'secondary' and the other
>>calling them 'qualified'.
>>
>>Chee-Kai's concern is that it may impact his schema generator. My
>>feeling is that what we are doing currently is correct. Each
>>Representation Term (in our models) has a complexType. The use of
>>Qualifier for Representation Term impacts the CCTS meta data and the
>>naming only.
>>
>>Mark, as Editor of CCTS , do you propose we should drop the Qualifier
>>for Representation Term?
>>
>>
>>CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
>>
>>>The CCTS specifies primary and secondary representation terms. Both are lexically synonimous to "representation term". There is no such thing as "qualifier representation term". If LC has that in the spreadsheet, then they need to clarify and ensure conformance with CCTS.
>>>
>>>
