sorry peter, i meant to cc this list as well
:-[
Peter Yim wrote:
FYI ... attn:
especially those who are working on Core Component modeling and representation
...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ubl] What CCT and DT should look like - models and mapping to
XSD
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:24:17 +0800
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ubl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <877716E0CE3D764B936101DEB781451A3030E3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From all the discussions going on about CCT/UDT/SDT schemas, i think it
is time to take stock and consolidate our approach.
My proposal is that we drive the schema generation from the data model
(as Michael has been advocating). Currently we have only the Specialised
Data Types for Codes modelled this way, but it is clear we
need to do this for the Core Component Types and Unspecialised Datatypes
as well.
Therefore, based on the discussions we have been having, i have
prepared draft spreadsheets for how UBL should implement both CCTs and
UDTs. This includes their correct UBL Name/attribute names and their
mapping onto XSD datatypes.
We need to get agreement on these so we can generate the correct
schemas. Can I ask for comments as soon as possible.
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
|