Re: Abstract Type vs. Type Code

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

Thanks!  So, if I understand correctly, the type code in the case of party is
for backward compatibility with EDI syntax.   This will be a big help in
framing my comments.

One down, two to go...

Lisa Shreve wrote:

> 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

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