Or:
[R 84] All UBL messages MUST validate to a corresponding schema. You should not rely
merely on well-formedness when defining and building a message..
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Vint [mailto:dvint@acord.org]
Sent: Monday, 14 July 2003 16:10
To: UBL-NDR
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 84
What are we really trying to say with this rule?
Is that any UBL document should have a matching Schema? Should there also
be a statement about validity based upon that schema? I would think
something like this is more appropriate:
[R 84] Any UBL messages MUST have a corresponding schema and the data
stream must be valid based upon that schema. You should not rely
merely on well-formedness when defining and building a message..
At 10:17 AM 7/14/2003 -0500, Lisa-Aeon wrote:
>Rules for Voting: Each email will have only one rule in it, I will try to
>mark the rules that group with it, or rules that might duplicate it. The
>membership has 5 working days to bring forth objection or discussion, after
>the 5 working days, if there are no objections, the rule will be assumed to
>be "ACCEPTED" and be given to the LCSC for their implementation.
>
>Please Reply leaving first email in Reply.
>
>Voting period on this rule ends: July 18, 2003
>
>*******************************
>[R 84] UBL messages must express semantics fully in schemas and not rely
>merely on well-formedness.
>
>
>ATG Decision: rule has not yet been discussed by ATG2
>
>
>
>---
>
>File has not been scanned
>
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 7/8/2003
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php