UBL Naming and Design Rules SC

 View Only

[ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper.

  • 1.  [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper.

    Posted 08-22-2002 13:14
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ubl-ndrsc message

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


    Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper.


    Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.
    Hello,
     
    Regarding CCTS compliance:  I don't recall anywhere in the CCTS v1.8 spec that mandates the structure of XML documents in regard to Dictionary Entry Names (I could have missed that detail, though).  I believe that these are 2 separate and distinct concepts.
     
    In any event, I don't believe the paper made a strong enough case for doing away with "good" (in my opinion) structure principles (the container approach, as we call it).  Plus, I think it makes great sense to divide such documents into high-level containers such as Header, Detail (or LineItem), and Summary,  I believe the arguments in the paper were weighted much too heavily on tools and performance - and while always a valid concern, I don't believe that in this day and age either should be a concern to this regard (that is, what "harm" will a few additional containership tags do for performance).  I would personally like to see a much stronger case made for the proposed approach.
     
    Thanks for listening.
     
    Joe

    **************************************************************************
      Joseph M. Chiusano
      Logistics Management Institute
      2000 Corporate Ridge
      McLean, VA 22102
      Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
      Tel: 571.633.7722
    **************************************************************************