Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6

From: 

To: 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:24:05 -0700 (PDT)

My recollection agrees with Anne's -- we decided that this is
something that can wait until 1.1.

Jon

   Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:40:32 -0700
   From: Anne Hendry <>
   CC: 

   The examples of what Chee-Kai has asked for are in his submission at 
   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200405/msg00043.html.

   However, my recollection is that we decided Chee-Kai's proposal had 
   ramifications that we probably didn't want to deal with at this time, 
   and although perhaps we should have a rule, this was a 1.1 issue. To 
   come to conclusion on this I think we first need to get agreement on 
   whether or not a rule is needed at this time.  I thought we decided we 
   didn't need one at this time, although this is not clear by the Issues 
   List Notes.  Tim/Jon/Stephen/MD were there and may have a different 
   recollection.  Then another part of the answer to this question has to 
   do with the future schedule of NDR releases: If  a rule is felt to be 
   needed, but not right away, can it wait for a subsequent release of the 
   NDRs, when we have better clarity of what, if anything, we want a rule 
   for (ie. will there be another release of the NDRs before 1.1?).

   -A

   Stephen Green wrote:

   >Mike
   >
   >I'm pretty sure we decided that this just wasn't happening like
   >that. The issue was more with the fact that the end of one word
   >didn't reset the (metaphorical) alphabetic order counter to zero
   >but treated the first letter of the next word as part of the consideration.
   >i.e.
   >OrderLine comes after Order and also comes after Ordering
   >(not a real example).
   >The TC meeting decided that this was the correct understanding
   >of alphabetic order.
   >So you'd get
   >Order then OrderGoods then Ordering then OrderLine
   >and not
   >Order then OrderGoods then OrderLine then Ordering.
   >
   >No real change is needed to the above situation.
   >
   >Case only comes into it because the second word happens to start
   >with a capital and the first word ends with a lower case letter.
   >
   >I hope that makes sense.
   >
   >I suppose the rule could make this clearer but the matter that
   >there needs to be an exception when Type is appended due to
   >Schema terminology rather than business semantics (i.e. complex Type)
   >is more of a requirement since this is happening when we'd prefer
   >that it didn't.
   >
   >Steve
   >
   >