RE: Abstract Type vs. Type Code

[James Whittle <james.whittle@e-centre.org.uk>]

Mike, my understanding agreed with QRT and Klaus was that the Initial
Catalogue of Core Components is not a specification. Comments could be
accepted, but against the structure rather than the content of the document.
The reason being is that these components discovered are by no means
definitive or complete.

Kind regards

James Whittle
E Business standards executive

Tel. No. 44 (0)20 7655 9022
Fax No. 44 (0)20 7681 2278


10 Maltravers Street, LONDON, WC2R 3BX.
www Address: www.e-centre.org.uk <http://www.e-centre.org.uk>  
e-mail james.whittle@e-centre.org.uk <mailto:james.whittle@e-centre.org.uk> 


Best business practice in a digital age.

Disclaimer Notice 

The above information is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which
it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any
use (including retransmission or copying) of this information by person(s)
or entity other than the intended recipient is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you
are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please would you
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The sender is
not responsible for the completeness or accuracy of this communication as it
has been transmitted over a public network. Any views or opinions are solely
those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of e centreUK.
All third party rights are duly acknowledged. e centreUK  is the trade name
of the Association for Standards and Practices in Electronic Trade - EAN UK
Limited, and is registered in the United Kingdom (Registration Number
1256140). 

© 2000 All Rights Reserved

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
		Sent:	15 March 2001 23:01
		To:	ebXML-core
		Subject:	Abstract Type vs. Type Code

		This is the first of a few questions that are intended to
help me
		understand the group's thinking before I make formal comment
on the
		specifications.   If any of these are old ground to you,
please forgive
		me and help me to get up to speed.

		In reviewing several of the items in the Appendix A spread
sheet there
		are several that have a type code.   (BTW, is this part of
the official
		submission, even if not an official spec?  I don't see it on
the web
		page for specifications for review),

		For example:  Party.Details has a Party Type.
Identification.Details
		which contains a code value and text.   I suspect the
intended use, but
		I would like verification.  If I use an OO-analysis analogy,
it would be
		like having a Party object with an attribute of type Seller,
rather than
		having a Seller concrete class that is a descendent of a
Party abstract
		class.

		I know you are trying to stay away from syntax issues in the
analysis,
		but there are syntax implications that have to do with your
intent.  If
		we take an example XML instantiation, do you intend
something like:

		<PartyDetails>
		...
		<PartyType>
		...
		<CodeDetails>SE</CodeDetails>
		...
		<PartyType>
		...
		<PartyDetails>

		instead of in the schemas declaring PartyDetails as a
complexType, with
		a Seller element being a party, and having in an instance
document:

		<Seller>

		...
		</Seller>

		It seems to me that in both cases you are intending the
former rather
		than the latter.  Please confirm.

		--
		Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
		http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/



	
------------------------------------------------------------------
		To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the
single word
		"unsubscribe" in the body to:
ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org