Stephen,
This is not a problem. We verified that the use of union of token and code
list would not permit automatic validation in parser. However, you can see that
the parser does understand the code set and note that in XMLSpy you can pick
from the list of codes.
By precluding the use of substitution groups in the UBL schemas, it is not
possible to constrain the acceptable values in the schemas. However, use of
union allows others to restrict from this definition which was not possible
otherwise.
This is, therefore, what I think is the best compromise given other NDR
decisions.
Marty
In a message dated 12/7/2005 10:01:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
Marty
There might be a problem as I rather suspected
The
following should not be valid, according to business
requirements:
<cac:Payment>
<cbc:ID schemeID="XXXXXXXXXX"
schemeName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyID="XXXXXXXXXX"
schemeAgencyName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeVersionID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeDataURI="Y"
schemeURI="Y">XXXXXXXXXX</cbc:ID>
<cbc:PaidAmount
currencyID="A">23</cbc:PaidAmount>
<cbc:ReceivedDate>2002-07-01</cbc:ReceivedDate>
<cbc:PaidDateTime>2002-07-01T05:10:10</cbc:PaidDateTime>
<cbc:ExpectedReceiptDateTime>2002-07-01T05:10:10</cbc:ExpectedReceiptDateTime>
<cbc:InstructionID
schemeID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeAgencyID="XXXXXXXXXX"
schemeAgencyName="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeVersionID="XXXXXXXXXX" schemeDataURI="Y"
schemeURI="Y">XXXXXXXXXX</cbc:InstructionID>
</cac:Payment>
It
has <cbc:PaidAmount currencyID="A">23</cbc:PaidAmount> with an
invalid currencyID "A"
but it is treated as valid (in XML Spy 2006 at
least).
This should be verified as I was only able to use the Home
Edition.
All the best
Steve
>>>
<> 07/12/05 12:50:14 >>>
All,
As
requested I have taken the draft 2.0 schemas and modified them minimally
to change the underlying type of currency code to a union of token and a
list
that is a restriction of token.
A couple of
notes:
1) The order instance in the set did not quite match the schemas
in the zip
file. The attached has an example generated from xml spy
based on the draft
schemas.
2) I did not quite get why there
are two code list schemas referenced in the
schema set. One with
codes and one without. So I modified both.
3) I did not flesh out the
entire currency code list schemas according to
the template.
However, the main difference is the incorporation of "fixed"
attribute definitions for supplementary components that allow instance
documents
to have these values as originally required. I assumed
that this part of the
template was not controversial so I made the
minimal changes on the union
discussion to make it easy to see the
small modifications required.
I am not sure I can make the Atlantic
call today, so please email with
comments/questions.
Cheers,
Marty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
