MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Comment Disposition Clarification: 1.6
From: Anne Hendry <>
To: Stephen Green <>,
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:40:32 -0700
The examples of what Chee-Kai has asked for are in his submission at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200405/msg00043.html.
However, my recollection is that we decided Chee-Kai's proposal had
ramifications that we probably didn't want to deal with at this time,
and although perhaps we should have a rule, this was a 1.1 issue. To
come to conclusion on this I think we first need to get agreement on
whether or not a rule is needed at this time. I thought we decided we
didn't need one at this time, although this is not clear by the Issues
List Notes. Tim/Jon/Stephen/MD were there and may have a different
recollection. Then another part of the answer to this question has to
do with the future schedule of NDR releases: If a rule is felt to be
needed, but not right away, can it wait for a subsequent release of the
NDRs, when we have better clarity of what, if anything, we want a rule
for (ie. will there be another release of the NDRs before 1.1?).
-A
Stephen Green wrote:
>Mike
>
>I'm pretty sure we decided that this just wasn't happening like
>that. The issue was more with the fact that the end of one word
>didn't reset the (metaphorical) alphabetic order counter to zero
>but treated the first letter of the next word as part of the consideration.
>i.e.
>OrderLine comes after Order and also comes after Ordering
>(not a real example).
>The TC meeting decided that this was the correct understanding
>of alphabetic order.
>So you'd get
>Order then OrderGoods then Ordering then OrderLine
>and not
>Order then OrderGoods then OrderLine then Ordering.
>
>No real change is needed to the above situation.
>
>Case only comes into it because the second word happens to start
>with a capital and the first word ends with a lower case letter.
>
>I hope that makes sense.
>
>I suppose the rule could make this clearer but the matter that
>there needs to be an exception when Type is appended due to
>Schema terminology rather than business semantics (i.e. complex Type)
>is more of a requirement since this is happening when we'd prefer
>that it didn't.
>
>Steve
>
>
