Field OPP-070-notice

[rengit62]

OPP-070-notice has got xpathRelative" : "efac:NoticeSubType/cbc:SubTypeCode without any @listname
but In the sample with subtype 4 (pin-only_24,xml for example ) has got the attribute : listName="notice-subtype".
Question : as the field has got "type" : "code", "codeList" : {
"value" : {
"id" : "notice-subtype",
"type" : "flat"
},
is it 'implicit' that the field has got an attribute called "listName" ? This is valid for all fields ?
Thanks

[YvesJo]

Hi,
Yes, for any XML element of type Code the listName attribute is 'implicitely' required.

[rengit62]

Thanks Yves but after I wrote I saw these fields on Metadata Section (pin-only_24.-maximal.xml)

<cbc:NoticeTypeCode listName="planning">pin-only</cbc:NoticeTypeCode> 

BT-02-notice should correspond to cbc:NoticeTypeCode with the value "pin-only" while
BT-03-notice with xpathRelative" : "cbc:NoticeTypeCode/@listname should be the attribute called listName with value "planning" of the tag cbc:NoticeTypeCode. Both BT-02-notice and BT-03-notice have got "type" : "code"
I am a little "confused" . I do not know if am doing well , I am writing a java main that should be 'agnostic' of the actual types of notices.
So I have to know the rules ..
Bye
Renato

[YvesJo]

Hi Renato,
Sorry, I didn't see you remaining question.
If you would like to know what BT-02 and BT-03 should be, you may have a look at the following figure:


You may also reverse engineer the codelists, there are notice type subsets for each form type (e.g. competition ) and notice subtype subsets for each notice type (e.g. can-desg )
Also consider that for any notice subtype change is also a valid form type (of course if the notice is about a change).
I wish this will answer your question.