ubl — archive

Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas

From: Michael Grimley
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:56:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















ubl message






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

--

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








Subject: Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas




From: Grimley Michael J NPRI <[email protected]>
To: "UBL List (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:10:07 -0500






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?

=============================================

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?


Thanks,
Mike Grimley 






Follow-Ups:

Re: [ubl] Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas
From: Tim McGrath <[email protected]>








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

--

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