UBL Naming and Design Rules SC

 View Only
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers

  • 1.  Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers

    Posted 05-19-2003 02:35 
    I think as well that it's important to give due considerations
to decisions made about containers.  I'm just thinking aloud
that if the Containers proposition hasn't included coverage
on various possibile effects, it might be a little hasty to
introduce them so quickly.  The "not very-disturbingly-
backward-incompatible manner" may, by then, be the norm
since many more instances will be in circulation than the
schemas.


An example I manage to find is:  <DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit>
where, for convenience of readers, the schema is:

<DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit>
  <ID>...</ID>
  <TypeCode>...</TypeCode>
  <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
</DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit>


So an instance could look like this:
(for illustration, <UBLContainer> is used as the container's name)

<DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit>
  <ID>...</ID>
  <TypeCode>...</TypeCode>
  <UBLContainer>
    <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine>
    <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine>
    <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine>
    <HandlingUnitDespatchLine> <!-- 1..n --> </HandlingUnitDespatchLine>
  </UBLContainer>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
  <ActualPackage> <!-- 0..n --> </ActualPackage>
</DespatchedTransportHandlingUnit>

It's hardly uniform treatment of repetitions, I'd say.


There's another example in OrderResponse where the schema
is:

<OrderResponse>
  ...
  <AllowanceCharge> <!-- 0..n --> </AllowanceCharge>
  ...
  <ReferencedOrderLine> <!-- 1..n --> </ReferencedOrderLine>
</OrderResponse>


Could NDR consider giving some more spin to the 0..n coverage
(or other aspects of containership) before it's implemented?

Thanks.



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/





On Fri, 16 May 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

>>I'd rather not go there at this time. IOW: we finally reached a decision
>>about containers that is agreeable to all. Let's leave it
>>there. It's not perfect, but it's a decision, and we can all live
>>with it, and we can change it in the future if needed (perhaps along
>>your line of thought) in a not very-disturbingly-backward-incompatible
>>manner.


Related Content