The UML diagrams describing item schemes (e.g. codelist) states that the item scheme may have zero or more items. You can see an example of that page 47 (line 895) of the SDMX IM document.
However, the text describing the diagram changes this cardinality to one or more (cf. page 48, line 920).
The latter seems more correct to me, as I don't see the point of maintaining a codelist without any codes. In any case, the UML diagrams and the text should be consistent with one another.
The same happens with the other item schemes (e.g. concept schemes).
Other collections (e.g. representation maps) seem to support 0 or more items, but this sounds odd to me too, for the same reason as the one mentioned above, i.e. what is the point of defining a representation map without any mapping definition in it?
Could you please clarify? Thank you 😊
The UML diagrams describing item schemes (e.g. codelist) states that the item scheme may have zero or more items. You can see an example of that page 47 (line 895) of the SDMX IM document.
However, the text describing the diagram changes this cardinality to one or more (cf. page 48, line 920).
The latter seems more correct to me, as I don't see the point of maintaining a codelist without any codes. In any case, the UML diagrams and the text should be consistent with one another.
The same happens with the other item schemes (e.g. concept schemes).
Other collections (e.g. representation maps) seem to support 0 or more items, but this sounds odd to me too, for the same reason as the one mentioned above, i.e. what is the point of defining a representation map without any mapping definition in it?
Could you please clarify? Thank you 😊