OASIS Open Mailing List Archives  ·  All Lists  ·  ubl-ndrsc  ·  2002-08

ubl-ndrsc — archive

[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]

[ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper.


 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
















ubl-ndrsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper.


Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.
Hello,
 
Regarding CCTS compliance:  I don't recall anywhere in the CCTS v1.8 spec that mandates the structure of XML documents in regard to Dictionary Entry Names (I could have missed that detail, though).  I believe that these are 2 separate and distinct concepts.
 
In any event, I don't believe the paper made a strong enough case for doing away with "good" (in my opinion) structure principles (the container approach, as we call it).  Plus, I think it makes great sense to divide such documents into high-level containers such as Header, Detail (or LineItem), and Summary,  I believe the arguments in the paper were weighted much too heavily on tools and performance - and while always a valid concern, I don't believe that in this day and age either should be a concern to this regard (that is, what "harm" will a few additional containership tags do for performance).  I would personally like to see a much stronger case made for the proposed approach.
 
Thanks for listening.
 
Joe

**************************************************************************
  Joseph M. Chiusano
  Logistics Management Institute
  2000 Corporate Ridge
  McLean, VA 22102
  Email: [email protected]
  Tel: 571.633.7722
**************************************************************************



[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]