ubl-ndrsc — archive

[Tim McGrath]

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl-ndrsc message






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

--

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








Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] NDR Checklist Clarification




From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
To: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:53:18 +0800










I agree with Mark that primary and secondary Representation Terms are just
'Representation Terms' in our Library.  However, I can see where we got confused
about Qualifiers for Representation Terms.  Throughout the first half of
the CCTS it implies (but does not outrightly state) that Qualifers apply
only to Object Class and Proprty Term.  But when we get to the naming rules,
the CCTS states:



6.1.4.3.3 Data Type Rules for Definitions

[D6] The definition of a Data Type shall use a structure that is based on
the existence

of primary and secondary Representation Terms of the associated Core

Component Type, and is enhanced by Qualifier Terms.


6.1.4.3.4 Rules for Data Type Dictionary Entry Names

[D14] The Dictionary Entry Name of a Data Type shall consist of a Representation

Term—preceded by Qualifier Term(s) as necessary —followed by a dot, a space

character, and the term Type. The space character shall separate words in
multi-word

Qualifier Terms and Representation Terms. Each Qualifier Term shall be followed
by an underscore.

To allow spell checking of the words in the Dictionary Entry Name, a space
character shall follow

the underscores after Qualifier Terms.

[Example]

Country_ Identifier. Type


This would explain why we have this column.  It has been in the models and
schemas since at least 0p70 - so we have had it for 12 months and it passed
reviews, presumably several times.  The good news is that we have never found
anything worth putting in there, so it is currently always blank.


Sounds to me as if the CCTS has two conflicting views on derived Representation
Terms - one calling them 'secondary' and the other calling them 'qualified'.


Chee-Kai's concern is that it may impact his schema generator.   My feeling
is that what we are doing currently is correct.  Each Representation Term
(in our models) has a complexType.  The use of Qualifier for Representation
Term impacts the CCTS meta data and the naming only.


Mark, as Editor of CCTS , do you propose we should drop the Qualifier for
Representation Term?



CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:


  
The CCTS specifies primary and secondary representation terms.  Both are lexically synonimous to "representation term".  There is no such thing as "qualifier representation term".  If LC has that in the spreadsheet, then they need to clarify and ensure conformance with CCTS.