ubl — archive

Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6

From: Anne Hendry
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:28:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

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

--

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

Subject: Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6

From: Anne Hendry <[email protected]>
To: Stephen Green <[email protected]>,       [email protected]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:40:32 -0700

The examples of what Chee-Kai has asked for are in his submission at 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200405/msg00043.html.

However, my recollection is that we decided Chee-Kai's proposal had 
ramifications that we probably didn't want to deal with at this time, 
and although perhaps we should have a rule, this was a 1.1 issue. To 
come to conclusion on this I think we first need to get agreement on 
whether or not a rule is needed at this time.  I thought we decided we 
didn't need one at this time, although this is not clear by the Issues 
List Notes.  Tim/Jon/Stephen/MD were there and may have a different 
recollection.  Then another part of the answer to this question has to 
do with the future schedule of NDR releases: If  a rule is felt to be 
needed, but not right away, can it wait for a subsequent release of the 
NDRs, when we have better clarity of what, if anything, we want a rule 
for (ie. will there be another release of the NDRs before 1.1?).

-A

Stephen Green wrote:

>Mike
>
>I'm pretty sure we decided that this just wasn't happening like
>that. The issue was more with the fact that the end of one word
>didn't reset the (metaphorical) alphabetic order counter to zero
>but treated the first letter of the next word as part of the consideration.
>i.e.
>OrderLine comes after Order and also comes after Ordering
>(not a real example).
>The TC meeting decided that this was the correct understanding
>of alphabetic order.
>So you'd get
>Order then OrderGoods then Ordering then OrderLine
>and not
>Order then OrderGoods then OrderLine then Ordering.
>
>No real change is needed to the above situation.
>
>Case only comes into it because the second word happens to start
>with a capital and the first word ends with a lower case letter.
>
>I hope that makes sense.
>
>I suppose the rule could make this clearer but the matter that
>there needs to be an exception when Type is appended due to
>Schema terminology rather than business semantics (i.e. complex Type)
>is more of a requirement since this is happening when we'd prefer
>that it didn't.
>
>Steve
>
>