UBL Naming and Design Rules SC

RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

  • 1.  RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

    Posted 01-31-2002 11:30
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ubl-ndrsc message

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


    Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements


    Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

    .Mike R.wrote -
    >
    > I'll put in my 2 cents worth for having one CCT per Representation
    > Term.  A one-to-one correspondence (or one-to-one and onto,i.e.,
    > isomorphic, if you want to be complete about it) is a lot cleaner
    > and better defined than the many-to-one CCT to RT relathionship in
    > the spec as it stands.

    only many to one are RTs (Date, Date Time, and Time) to CCT (Date. Time) and RTs (Percent, Rate, and Value) to CCT (Numeric. Type).   I don't think we have a problem here as there is a clear relationship for the two many to one.  We may also find that the new CCTs being proposed - "Video.Type and Sound.Type or e Multimedia.type which also may cover Picture.Type and Graphics.Type would result in adding the RTs we need through a many-to-one relationship.

    Mark



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


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC