[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Minutes Atlantic Call Sept 22 2004
Chee-Kai has pointed out that the comment is about the annotation. Apologies; I misunderstood. Apparently there are *annotations* which have Amount as the datatype rather than UBL-Amount. So, thankfully, this, I think, could be resolved in 1.1 without breaking backwards compatibility with regard to instances. ----- Original Message ----- From: <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> To: <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>; <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:39 PM Subject: RE: [ubl] Minutes Atlantic Call Sept 22 2004 Stephen wrote: >In line with my action item I've just looked briefly at the UBL 1.0 Schemas > and I can confirm there's no problem regarding the first of CheeKai's comments. >This was the one I was most concerned about. The Amounts do use the UBL_Amount >type but these are now defined as such in the cbc Schema so the cac refernces now >point not straight to the sdt definition but to the cbc which points to the sdt. This is as we > intended so there is, to my mind, no mistake. I'll look at the other items later and respond >on ubl-dev. Still, very grateful for this extra QA from Chee-Kai. Assuming the sdt points to the udt, then Stephen is correct. As long as there is a chain of derivation that leads back to udt:amount.type as the first base type then we are in conformance with the NDR. 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]