[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
RE: Version element in documentation: > 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") ? I would say 'yes'. ========================================================================= RE: use="optional": > 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? I have no strong feelings on this either way; however, it is nice to explicitly state attribute values for those people who may not know, offhand, what the default value is. -----Original Message----- From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au] Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 19 12 To: Grimley Michael J NPRI Cc: UBL List (E-mail) 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. > >============================================= > > >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]