OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC

 View Only

Re: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas

  • 1.  Re: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas

    Posted 03-22-2004 23:58
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ubl message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas


    
    
    Grimley Michael J NPRI wrote:
    
    >Greetings,
    >
    >1)  We are missing a required 'Version' element in the documentation of every datatype. (We seem to be missing it in all the other schemas as well, for datatypes *and* BIEs.)
    >
    >    I would assume the value would be '1.0' (or some such thing) for everything in the initial release.
    >
    >=============================================
    >
    it appears we are missing this parameter.  but shouldn't it be 
    automatically taken from the build number (e.g. "1.0-draft-9.1") ?
    
    >
    >2)  In the UDT schema, the 'DateTimeType' definition is what I would expect; there is a restriction on cct:DateTimeType that removes the infamous 'format' attribute.
    >    However, the datatypes with a base of 'cct:IndicatorType' or 'cct:NumericType' define a restriction, but then include the 'format' attribute, which in effect makes it no different than the CCT datatypes.
    >    Is this what was intended?
    >
    >=============================================
    >
    i agree we should be consistent.  i assume that when we use a built in 
    xsd type that format is not only redundant but potentially harmful.  
    therefore it should be removed in the UDT.
    
    >
    >3)  Minor point: In the CCT schema, the attribute definitions all declare 'use="optional"' even though it is the default value and does not need to be declared. In the UDT schema, 'use="optional"' is *not* declared (except in the restriction of 'cct:IndicatorType'). Do we want/need to be consistent here?
    >
    >  
    >
    yes, consistency is what we need.  i seem to recall that in other cases 
    (minOccurs??) we said we would not rely on defaults and explicitly 
    define attributes - is that true?
    
    >Thanks,
    >Mike Grimley 
    >
    >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/members/leave_workgroup.php.
    >
    >  
    >
    
    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    phone: +618 93352228  
    postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]