MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] BBIE Property Type Naming AI
From: Tim McGrath <>
To: Grimley Michael J NPRI <>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 22:59:11 +0800
I am not sure why we ned to say "unqualified
ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty" and "qualified
ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty".
isn't the whole idea of having a thing called ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty
meant to distinguish it from a ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntity?
what makes a ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty
is that it is unqualified (it is a ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntity
without the qualifier part of the name).
i would expect that is we are creating a CBC for re-usable types then
all ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty
should be in thier even if they are only used with qualification in the
documents and aggregations.
in answer to your question about how many definitions are needed - a
quick sort shows about 20-30 fall into this category.
Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:
> "[XXX] Every
ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty MUST be defined in the CBC."
Maybe change that to:
"[XXX] Every unqualified
ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty MUST be defined in the CBC."
Are there many BBIE's like "PostalZone", where we
don't use (don't have) a related unqualified BBIE Property?
In those cases, does anyone
have a problem with defining, for example, a 'ZoneType' in the CBC
which will be used by 'PostalZone' where it is declared in the CAC? It
would, obviously, simplify the rules.
The other option would be to
create another rule something like:
"[XXX] Every qualified
ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty which does not have
a corresponding unqualified ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntityProperty
MUST be defined in the CBC."
FYI:
Unfortunately, I will not be on the call until ~1100 Eastern.
