ubl-ndrsc — archive

[Tim McGrath]

 MHonArc v2.4.5 -->

















ubl-ndrsc message






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

--

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








Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers




From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: A Gregory <agregory@aeon-llc.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:22:52 +0800






Title: 




i dont understand why you would reference the order in the response at this
level. �this is not what i thought metadata meant.


the UBL OrderReponse has a ReferencedOrder ABIE in its structure already.
these relationships are business rules not something we could have any parser
validate.


this issue keeps coming up, so obviously i am missing something. �perhaps
some simple example contrasting the benefits of your architecture against
what the current schemas do would help.



PS


this guy has won the donkey - now he has to earn it!


A Gregory wrote:


  
Eduardo:

This would only be needed in cases where you had two sets of different data
in two doctypes' head elements in the same namespace, and weanted to use the
schema to validate. A good example of this is in an ordering process: a
response to an order requires a reference to the order it is a response to,
which is required. This field does not exist in the order itself, and hence
cannot be required.

You could, of course, make it optional (notice I said "suspect" in my
original e-mail, indicating that this might not be the case...)

Cheers,

Arofan