Audun,
Thank you for your additional comments on these cardinality issues. I have attached a slightly updated version of those issues which I hope Tim will get to before our closing date.
Andy
From: "Audun Vennesland" <>
To: "Andrew M Schoka" <>, "Tim McGrath" <>
Cc: "G. Ken Holman" <>, "UBL TransportSubCommittee" <>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 2:34:51 AM
Subject: RE: TSCcardinalityIssues20121121.xls
Hi,
I have added some comments to the spreadsheet to many of the entries that relate to intermodal freight (and some other ones). My comments are marked in yellow.
Regards,
Audun
From: Andrew M Schoka [mailto:]
Sent: 21. november 2012 16:31
To: Tim McGrath
Cc: Audun Vennesland; G. Ken Holman; UBL TransportSubCommittee
Subject: TSCcardinalityIssues20121121.xls
Tim,
As a followup to yesterday’s TC call I am sending the subset of entries within the TSC definition review that deal with cardinality. In many cases Jon asks the question: should this be 0..n? as it relates to Text type
entries. During my discussion with Audun it also came up that perhaps all Text types needed to be 0..n to accommodate an entry in multiple languages.
Since this is the most time critical issue I ask that you scan this and offer some guidance. If there is agreement that all Text types should be 0..n, then shouldn’t this also apply to the PSC? Can we make a generalized
change to edocreator that makes all Text type 0..1?
BTW, there are also some entries within that relate to unique entries that require more specific knowledge than I have. Could you also address these?
Thanks,
Andy
Attachment:
TSCcardinalityIssues20121127_AVAMS.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
