UBL Small Business SC

 View Only

Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBP 2.0 definitions needing CPA templates

  • 1.  Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBP 2.0 definitions needing CPA templates

    Posted 03-07-2006 12:24
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ubl-sbsc message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBP 2.0 definitions needing CPA templates


    Incidentally, how about if we are eventually able to add a methodology
    and guidelines for specializing the generic / abstract (logical document)
    process definitions (ebBP) to cater for:
    
    *  transformation / mapping documentation (definition format, perhaps, provided
        as we do for the subsets of the SBS with XPaths)
    
    *  customisation
    
    *  minor and major versions
    
    etc
    
    Elaborating - the generic definitions files each include two
    Specification elements
    for each document element. They have attributes with placeholder values which
    can be replaced (I hope) by some sort of attribute substitution in a specialized
    version of the definition (I guess this has to be another file with
    another url, hosted
    by another organisation, say, as publicly as necessary). The first can
    then be used
    for the schema of the document. The second might, I'd suggest, be used for
    referencing a document with a mapping definition to and from UBL (where the
    documents used will be non-UBL) or similar for future or past versions of UBL
    (sufficiently different to require use of specialization of the
    generic process defintion)
    or similar again for mappings to (or equivalent required documentation) a
    customized version and/or subset of UBL.
    
    Would it not be nice to provide some day a schema / XML format for creating
    transformation definitions in a similar style to our SBS subset definition XPath
    files. The main difference would be the need to provide two XPaths, one for
    the UBL element or attribute and another for the mapped to/from element or
    attribute (or string location if it is an EDI type of document) in the
    other document.
    This would facilitate use of UBL
    
    *  as a hub between divergent document formats / standards
    
    *  with customisation
    
    *  with other subsets
    
    *  with different versions
    
    *  with combinations of the above
    
    *  with CAM, etc
    
    and all this while maximising interoperability through keeping the business
    processes within the above operate as fixed as possible (using UBP).
    
    How does this sound?
    
    All the best
    
    Steve
    
    
    On 07/03/06, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Sacha , cc SBSC and Monica due to discussion below
    >
    > Hi Sacha, This is where the time differences between UK and US come in handy:
    > I do apologise but I only just realised you were generating CPAs for the generic
    > definitions too so we'll need them for the attached too as well as the
    > one I sent earlier.
    > Sorry.
    >
    >
    > I wonder what the implications of having CPAs for the generic
    > definitions will be.
    > Is there a way to use the generic definition unchanged? Normally it would be
    > included into another to specialize it with attribute substitution
    > (I'd like to see
    > a demo of that as I'm not yet sure how it would work) for a particular schema
    > (typically other than UBL, though it could be another, say future,
    > version of UBL
    > or a customisation perhaps). What would happen if they were left as they are and
    > referenced in the CPAs as they are? On the other hand I appreciate the benefit
    > of illustrating a CPA referencing the generic definition as this may minimise
    > changes when the definition is specialized and needs to be referenced. But if
    > the CPA references the generic definition does that actually prove
    > useful in some
    > way? Can a CPA be that generic?
    >
    > Any comments welcome :-)
    >
    > All the best
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >
    >
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]