Re: Abstract Type vs. Type Code

[Lisa Shreve <lshreve@mediaone.net>]

Mike,

The CC team recognizes the requirements to 1) keep a collection of types of
parties, and 2) express specific types of parties.  These requirements have
been accomplished with the associating a party type with the party details.

In generating syntax specific representations, we will be in a position to
serve both of the communities you are referring to, the edi style and the
xml schema.

I hope this answers your question.

lms

> 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