MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Comments to ATG2 regarding the versionID in namespaces
As suggested I have completed an ATG2 Implementation verification
comment form (I adapted the UML to EDIFACT one off the same page) to
promote the "namespace for supplementary components" issue.
please find this attached. please keep the list posted with any
developments.
Tim McGrath wrote:
You were seen as the contac point for both CCTS and ATG2 so its up to
you
who best deals with which issue.
The precise concerns are given in numbers 23 and 27 in the current
issues
list. I will attempt to summarize these as:
Issue 27: (this is CCTS one) Inconsistent use of code list
supplementary
components.
The CCTS gives the following Code List SCs for Code:
Code List.Agency.Identifier
Code List.Agency Name.Text
Code List.Name. Text
Code List.Identifier
Code List Scheme. Uniform Resource. Identifier
Code List.Uniform Resource. Identifier
Code List. Version.Identifier
The SCs for Amount only has:
Amount Currency. Code List Version. Identifier
Measure only has:
Measure Unit.Code
Measure Unit.Code List Version. Identifier
Quantity only has:
Quantity Unit.Code List.Identifier
Quantity Unit.Code List Agency. Identifier
Quantity Unit. Code List Agency Name. Text
It seems reasonable to expect all four to have the same SCs, as each
use
a code list. It also means that when we use Quantity we cannot state
what
version of the code is being used and when we use Measure we cannot say
what
agency owns the code list.
Issue23: (this is an ATG2 one) In summary this requires that the SCs
for
each data type must be explicit in the document instances for audit
purposes.
When we look at the ATG2 Unqualified Data Type schema module (at least
in
version 1.0) we find Code, Amount and Measure are restricted to have
no
Code List Version Identifiers. So we cannot say what version of the
codes
we are using without relying on namespaces. This is made clear by the
rule:
[R 131] WITHIN THE UDT:UNQUALIFIEDDATATYPE XSD:COMPLEXTYPE
XSD:EXTENSION
ELEMENT AN XSD:ATTRIBUTE MUST BE DECLARED FOR EACH SUPPLEMENTARY
COMPONENT
PERTAINING TO THE UNDERLYING CCT, UNLESS THE ATTRIBUTE IS CONTAINED IN
THE
NAMESPACE DECLARATION.
The issue we have with this is that in any given document instance we
cannot
tell what version of which code was being used. It seems that there
are
conflicting design requirements here.
As we do not want to go against anything in CCTS or ATG2 in UBL 2.0 we
would
be grateful if you could ask for their advice on these issues.
CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
>It relates to the Core Component
Types,
on the Core Component
>Types, Amounts and Quantities for Measure, they do not have
sufficient
>supplementary components.
what SC's exactly are you proposing?
>This is documented inside CCTS.
Not sure what you mean here.
>Is this a known issue and should
it fed
back to ATG2?
The CCTS team controls the SC's. ATG2 only
expresses
them in the schema.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
DOCUMENT ENGINEERING: Analyzing and Designing Documents for Business Informatics and Web Services
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=632C40AB-4E94-4930-A94E-22FF8CA5641F&ttype=2&tid=10476
|
ATGComments.xls
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]