NDR 2 observations

Hi folks, I have three questions in this note for
which I would like to get feedback from committee members.

During the Atlantic call I brought up two issues of the NDR 2 document:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/22992/UBL-NDR-2-20070207.pdf

(1) Code lists - chapter 6

This chapter does not describe the meta data
information items we have used for CodeType and
IdentifierType.  Someone using the NDRs to
convert spreadsheets to schemas would not be guided in the meta data to use.

Now this might be okay ... do we want to leave
open to implementers of UBL NDRs the chance for
them to use their own choices of attribute meta
data for code list and identifer information
items, or do we want to document those
information items as we have included them in our
schemas (which might lead implementers to feel the need to copy their use)?

The comments currently in the chapter are
accurate with respect to the *valiation* of
information items based on code lists and
identifiers using enumerated lists of values, but
given the role of the NDR to direct the synthesis
of schemas from spreadsheets, I think two questions need to be asked:

(Q-1a) - should we document the meta data
components we are declaring for code lists and
identifiers in our schemas? (I think we should)

(Q-1b) - should we indicate the meta data
components we are using necessarily must be
implemented or are they merely an exemplar that
implementers can choose to follow or choose to
craft for themselves with their own choices of
meta data components? (I think I can go either
way ... mandate it if we want some level of
document conformance or don't mandate it if all
we are providing is schema design guidance)

(2) Minor versioning - chapter 3.6

I put out some new ideas on the table in August
of last year in Montréal regarding minor
versioning and I would like to discuss these in
Manhattan.  These ideas were very well received
by Mikkel's staff during a briefing in Denmark
and I think are worthy of consideration for us to
follow.  It is my goal to write these up in detail before Manhattan.

Since we haven't yet released a minor version,
and the NDR 2.0 document is supposed to reflect
what we *have* done (not necessarily what we are
going to do since we can revise the NDR when we
revise UBL), should we remove some of the
description of minor versioning in the document
and replace them with something along the lines
of "a revision to these NDRs will include minor versioning rules"?

Jon pointed out that we cannot change the list of
rules as the list of rules was published for UBL
2.0.  A quick review of the existing [VER*] rules
indicates they are all being followed for UBL 2.0
(good thing!) but might have to be modified
slightly in an NDR 2.1 for UBL 2.1 ... not sure
... it depends on whether one equates the version
of a schema with the version of the document
element of that schema ... don't worry, I hope to
make this all clear in my upcoming contribution to the Manhattan meeting.

My concern is that other implementers of NDR 2.0
may publish minor revisions of their work and
their approaches may differ from what we decide to do in NDR 2.1 for UBL 2.1.

(Q-2) - should we touch chapter 3.6 at all or
leave it as is until an NDR 2.1 accurately
reflects what we eventually decide to do for UBL 2.1?

Thank you for your opinions on these questions!

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:
publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman
mailto:
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0
+1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal