Re: [ubl] The Current UBL 2.0 NDR draft document

Sylvia,

I'm sorry you sent your message before I had a chance to send out
the rest of the minutes, which will take another couple of days
because of other work I have to do.  I believe you misunderstand
what's been happening.

 - To my knowledge, no changes have been made to the NDRs that

would affect FX operation.  We discussed this specifically in

the meeting, and it's our understanding and belief that Peter

can generate another set of schemas based on the rules you've

already incorporated in your product per the NDRs of 19 July.

So I don't think that GEFEG will have to "consider any changes

or additions to FX that were not included in the draft NDR

document dated July 19, 2006" because I don't think there are

any.

 - With regard to the IND rules -- they haven't changed much since

1.0.  With two exceptions, they have just been moved from one

normative document to another and given a little editorial

polishing.  We took the IND rules out of the Schema and Design

Rules because they are not, in fact, rules for naming or schema

design, and we moved them to a new Section 7 of the UBL 2.0

document following the schema-defined normative instance

constraints because they are, in fact, non-schema-defined

normative instance constraints.  But this editorial change has

nothing to do with schema generation.

 - IND7, a recent addition, was removed after two long, intense

discussions about the meaning and use of the new UBL version,

subset, and profile ID elements.  The decisions we made were

consciously designed to leave the PRD2 schemas unchanged, so

there should be no impact on FX from this item.

 - IND4 was removed for a reason I don't find documented in my

notes, but I'm sure the NDR editors can explain once they get

home.  It obviously has no effect on schema generation.

UBL greatly appreciates the dedication and patience of GEFEG as we
develop our standard.  It is our duty to ensure that your
reputation as leaders in your market is not jeopardized by any
misdirected communication of requirements.  As you will understand
from your experience in this area, we have to accomodate all
comments and issues as they emerge as part of the development
process.  In this case, it may be that the scope and effect of
documentary changes have been miscommunicated, and hopefully this
is now clearer.

As I said, I know of no changes made at the TC meeting in
Montr�al this week that would affect the operation of the
current schema generation software.  If I'm forgetting something,
I trust that members present will correct me.  And if GEFEG can
find any operational effect from changes made at the meeting, I
trust that you will so inform us.

Jon

==================================================================
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:55:27 -0700
From: Sylvia Webb