ubl-ndrsc — archive

Re: [ubl-lcsc] Schema Review #2 - Draft 7

From: Tim McGrath
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 05:50:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl-ndrsc message

Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Schema Review #2 - Draft 7

From: Tim McGrath <[email protected]>
To: Lisa-Aeon <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:51:32 +0800

Thanks for these. it is good to see the NDR folks are keeping us honest.

These need to be disposed of at the next LCSC meeting. meanwhile, see my comments inline...

Lisa-Aeon wrote:

More issues/comments from the NDR Schema Review Team (all of these issues
will be on the agenda of the next LCSC and NDRSC teleconference calls,
depending on which group needs to look at them):

In Reusable:

PartyType includes an element called PartyIdentification. Shouldn't this be
PartyID? Also, it is defined as a sequence of a single 'ID' element. I don't
recall seeing the latest spreadsheet so I'm not sure what may have caused
this naming/structure.

We don't generally abbreviate ABIE names so the 'Identification'->"ID" formula did not kick in. The reason is that PartyIdentification is an ABIE not a BBIE. The Property Term Noun is "Party Identification" not just "Identification".

I have checked the latest NDR checklist and it appears we dont explicitly have these abbreviation rules anymore. the nearest i could find was:

[GNR4] UBL XML Element, attribute, and Simple and complex type names MUST notNOT use acronyms, abbreviations, or other word truncations, except those in the list of exceptions published in Appendix B.

I cannot see Appendix B but i think what we have is correct.

CoreComponentTypes:

ID and IDREF are used throughout, due to definition of Common Attributes.

the last checklist i have (sept 17th) says...
[R 105] ID/IDREF MUST NOT be used. [Ed Note - on hold]
[R 106] Key/KeyRef MAY be used. [Ed Note - on hold]

Is it still on hold? if not, is this an issue that can be resolved at the same time as the CoreComponentTypes.xsd discussion?


Order:

TotalPackagesCountQuantity. Wouldn't 'Count' and 'Quantity' be considered
similar enough to drop the 'Quantity'?

good idea, except the CCTS rule is that we would have to drop the 'Count' (the Property Term) not the 'Quantity' (the Representation Term). So it would become TotalPackagesQuantity - which works just as well. We can achieve this by changing the Property Term of Count to be Quantity.

If we want to do this is should be part of 'draft 9'.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lisa Seaburg
AEON Consulting
Website: http://www.aeon-llc.com
Email:  [email protected]
Alternative Email: [email protected]
Phone: 662-562-7676
Cellphone: 662-501-7676

"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun."
                       -Katharine Hepburn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_workgroup.php.

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160

References:
- Schema Review #2 - Draft 7
  - From: "Lisa-Aeon" <[email protected]>