ubl — archive

Abstract type (was: Re: A Codelist Issue)

From: Jon Bosak
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:41:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Abstract type (was: Re: A Codelist Issue)




From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:55:27 -0800 (PST)






[[email protected]:]

| > We did in fact discuss the use of substitution groups and abstract
| > types for code lists in Washington, and we did come to an
| > agreement among the people attending that we could live with
| > making an exception to the NDRs for code lists to allow these
| 
| but no discussion took place regarding an exception to the rule
| that types cannot be abstract, which I understand from previous
| emails is also part of the proposal.

Unless I'm thinking of something else, the abstract type mechanism
was in Marty's paper, and no one expressed a problem with it.  I
believe that this was even contained in the diagram I put up in
front of the closing plenary when we discussed how the proposed
solution was going to work.

Does anyone remember this differently?

Jon






Follow-Ups:

Re: [ubl] Abstract type (was: Re: A Codelist Issue)
From: Anne Hendry <[email protected]>



References:

Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue
From: Eduardo Gutentag <[email protected]>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]