ubl — archive

[Jon Bosak]

Sylvia, I'm sorry you sent your message before I had a chance to send out the rest of the minutes, which will take another couple of days because of other work I have to do. I believe you misunderstand what's been happening. - To my knowledge, no changes have been made to the NDRs that would affect FX operation. We discussed this specifically in the meeting, and it's our understanding and belief that Peter can generate another set of schemas based on the rules you've already incorporated in your product per the NDRs of 19 July. So I don't think that GEFEG will have to "consider any changes or additions to FX that were not included in the draft NDR document dated July 19, 2006" because I don't think there are any. - With regard to the IND rules -- they haven't changed much since 1.0. With two exceptions, they have just been moved from one normative document to another and given a little editorial polishing. We took the IND rules out of the Schema and Design Rules because they are not, in fact, rules for naming or schema design, and we moved them to a new Section 7 of the UBL 2.0 document following the schema-defined normative instance constraints because they are, in fact, non-schema-defined normative instance constraints. But this editorial change has nothing to do with schema generation. - IND7, a recent addition, was removed after two long, intense discussions about the meaning and use of the new UBL version, subset, and profile ID elements. The decisions we made were consciously designed to leave the PRD2 schemas unchanged, so there should be no impact on FX from this item. - IND4 was removed for a reason I don't find documented in my notes, but I'm sure the NDR editors can explain once they get home. It obviously has no effect on schema generation. UBL greatly appreciates the dedication and patience of GEFEG as we develop our standard. It is our duty to ensure that your reputation as leaders in your market is not jeopardized by any misdirected communication of requirements. As you will understand from your experience in this area, we have to accomodate all comments and issues as they emerge as part of the development process. In this case, it may be that the scope and effect of documentary changes have been miscommunicated, and hopefully this is now clearer. As I said, I know of no changes made at the TC meeting in Montr�al this week that would affect the operation of the current schema generation software. If I'm forgetting something, I trust that members present will correct me. And if GEFEG can find any operational effect from changes made at the meeting, I trust that you will so inform us. Jon ================================================================== Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:55:27 -0700 From: Sylvia Webb