1. Discussion of 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 states differently

4. Reaction TMG & ATG According to the discussion in Geneva TMG and ATG the scenario as outlined on the previous slide is possible. An appropriate representation in UPCC is yet to be defined.

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: ?

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 scenario as presented on the previous slide is valid. is supported by 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 with header without header 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 spaces removed.

10. Reaction TMG & ATG No action taken here. If two root elements have the same name, namespaces will have to be used.

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 Facets can only be applied to simple types. In case complexTypes are used for BDTs facets will be applied in such a manner that you'll drill down to the first simpleType and apply the facet there.