1 / 12

Discussion on UPCC Comments from UN/CEFACT Forum Meeting, Geneva 2010

This document summarizes key comments and reactions from the UN/CEFACT Forum Meeting held in Geneva from August 30 to September 4, 2010. It highlights the need for XOR relationships in business document structures and discusses the implications for XML representation. Additionally, it addresses constraints in UPCC models that affect XML Schema outputs, emphasizing the importance of consistent root element naming. The document also clarifies the application of facets to Business Data Types (BDTs), focusing on their limitations regarding complex types.

hamlin
Télécharger la présentation

Discussion on UPCC Comments from UN/CEFACT Forum Meeting, Geneva 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discussionof UPCC comments UN/CEFACT Forum Meeting Geneva, 30.08. – 04.09.2010

  2. Comment #1 A DOCLibrary should have the possibility to have XOR relationships between two ASBIEs in order to allow multiple response documents under one business document.

  3. Line 469 of the NDR statesdifferently

  4. Reaction TMG & ATG • According to the discussion in Geneva TMG and ATG the scenarioasoutlined on the previousslideispossible. • An appropriaterepresentation in UPCC isyet to bedefined.

  5. Comment #84 On the business information entity level it should be possible to express a business requirement using an XOR between two properties (BBIE or ASBIE). Implication for the underlying XML: <xsd:choice>?

  6. context: My_ Address inv: self.Long_ PostalCode->size()=1 implies Short_ PostalCode->size()=0 inv: self. Short_ PostalCode->size()=1 implies Long_ PostalCode->size()=0

  7. Reaction TMG & ATG • The scenarioaspresented on the previousslideis valid. • <xsd:choice> issupportedby the NDR 3.0

  8. Comment #76 Due to different OCL constraints, leading to different compositions in a UPCC model, the generated XML Schema output, based on the NDR 3.0, is not the same. Thus, the filename (rootname) should not be the same, as this would lead to confusion. In different files with the same name, different structure is stored.

  9. UPCC Model <XML Schema File> withoutheader <XML Schema File> withheader NDR [R A466] The name of the root element MUST be the same as the name of the business information payload data dictionary name, with separators and spacesremoved.

  10. Reaction TMG & ATG • No actiontakenhere. • Iftworootelementshave the same name, namespaces will have to beused.

  11. Comment How do I apply a facet to a content component of a BDT in case the BDT maps to a complex type? See line 2358 of the NDR.

  12. Reaction ATG & TMG • Facetscanonlybeapplied to simple types. • In casecomplexTypesareused for BDTs facets will beapplied in such a mannerthatyou'll drill down to the firstsimpleType and apply the facetthere.

More Related