ubl — archive

[Ken Holman]

Hi folks, It turns out our decision to accept new dictionary entry names for old constructs was hiding a backwards compatibility problem. Thankfully the sample instances revealed the need to update the model checking. And thankfully that updated model checking found only the one problem revealed by the sample instances and not any other problems of the same ilk. Far below is the latest complete report and excerpted here below is the new addition: ASBIEs found in error: 1 Old Parent DEN: "Consignment. Details" New Parent DEN: "Consignment. Details" Old name: "TransportContract" New name: "TransportContract" Old DEN: "Consignment. Transport_ Contract. Contract" New DEN: "Consignment. Transport Contract" Old associated class: "Contract" New associated class: "Transport Contract" Old order: 1 ID *2 IssueDate *3 IssueTime *4 ContractTypeCode *5 ContractType *6 ValidityPeriod *7 ContractDocumentReference New order (not including newly-introduced optional constructs): New order (all constructs): 1 Contract *2 NominationPeriod *3 ContractualDelivery What this means is that until this is fixed UBL 2.1 is not backward compatible to UBL 2.0 because UBL 2.0 is expecting: