MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] IMPT: Ongoing work items
[MCRAWFORD@lmi.org:]
| > UBL 1.0 achieves the basic objective of the first phase of the
| > UBL charter — to develop a workable standard library of
| > XML business documents. The second phase (UBL 2.0) is intended
| > to produce a mechanism for the automatic generation of
| > context-specific business schemas.
|
| Recommend rewriting second sentence as follows:
|
| The second phase (UBL 2.0) is intended to produce additions to
| the UBL library and schema set and a mechanism for the
| automatic generation of context-specific business schemas.
Done.
| > H.1.4 Location of Qualified BBIE Property Element Definitions
| >
| > In UBL 1.0, all qualified BBIE property elements are defined in
| > the Common Basic Components schema (Section 6.2.1).
| > Alternatively, these elements could be defined in either the
| > Common Aggregate Components schema or in the individual
| > document schemas where they are used. This issue remains open,
| > but any change in future releases should not affect UBL 1.0
| > instances.
|
| Not sure who raised this nor do I agree with it as it further
| breaks the entire UBL modularity model that was developed by
| NDR after many months of discussion and analysis. However,
| recommend rewriting as follows:
|
| In UBL 1.0, all BBIE properties are declared as elements and
| defined as complex types in the Common Basic Components
| schema (Section 6.2.1).Alternatively, these constructs could
| be defined in either the Common Aggregate Components schema
| or in the individual document schemas where they are used.
| This issue remains open, but any change in future releases
| should not affect UBL 1.0 instances.
See more on this from Mike Grimley below.
| > H.2.1 Relative Paths in Schema Modules
| >
| > UBL 1.0 has been released using relative path names for the
| > location of schemas in order to facilitate offline validation
| > and to work around current naming limitations on the OASIS web
| > site. Use of absolute paths and a registry for the component
| > library will be considered as the supporting infrastructure
| > becomes available.
|
| Recommend changing to:
|
| UBL NDR identified a requirement for absolute path names for
| schema locations as a necessary requirement for standards
| based schemas to ensure consistency, clarity, and absolute
| assurances that the UBL normative schema are in fact being
| used. However, current OASIS architecture limitations
| preclude the availability of a suitable registry/repository
| to support this requirement. As a result, UBL 1.0 has been
| released using relative path names for the location of
| schemas in order to facilitate offline validation and to
| work around those limitations. Use of absolute paths and a
| registry for the component library will be implemented in a
| future version as the supporting infrastructure becomes
| available.
Done.
| >H.2.2 Version Element in the Documentation of Every BIE
|
| > UBL 1.0 assumes that the version number of each UBL BIE is also
| > 1.0. However, as reusable BIEs become available from
| > registries and customised libraries, it is possible that BIEs
| >may be used outside of their original release. This may result
| > in a requirement to assign a version number to each BIE in
| >future versions of UBL.
|
| Absolutely disagree with the inclusion of this in the release.
| There are no BIEs in the schema. The versioning is linked to the
| schema constructs, not the individual BIEs. When an underlying
| BIE is changed, it WILL result in a new version of the schema -
| either major or minor depending on its level of change.
Does anyone see this as a live issue? Speak up now if you do or
I'll cut it.
| > H.3.3 Common CCTS Schemas
| >
| > The schemas for Core Component Types and Datatypes included in
| > this package (Section 6.2.2) were developed in cooperation with
| > representatives of the Open Applications Group, Inc., but the
| > versions currently used by the two organizations are not yet
| > identical. Differences between the CCTS schemas used in UBL
| > 1.0 and OAGIS 9.0 have been identified in these five areas:
| >
| > - Naming of Supplementary Components as attributes
| >
| > - Use of XSD normalizedString for code, identifier, and text
| > components
| >
| > - Use of XSD built-in dataypes requiring format Supplementary
| > Components (Date Time, Indicator and Numeric)
| >
| > - Restrictions on Binary Object for Graphic, Picture, Sound
| > and Video data type
| >
| > - Patterns for Indicator data type
|
| >The UBL TC is forming a team to work with OAG members in the
| >construction of a single set of schemas that can be used by
| >both organizations and intends to adopt the common schemas in
| >the UBL 1.1 time frame.
|
| Recommend recognizing that in fact UN/CEFACT ATG has been part of
| the effort discussed above from the beginning and in fact the
| UN/CEFACT and OAG versions of the schema are much more closely
| aligned that UBL and OAG. Further, recommend rewriting the last
| sentence as follows:
|
| The UBL TC has long recognized that UN/CEFACT, as the owner of the
| CCTS specification, should publish the normative CCT and
| unspecialised Datatype schema modules. UN/CEFACT is committed to
| working with UBL, OAG, and others to make this requirement a
| reality. It is anticipated that the UN/CEFACT CCT and
| unspecialised datatype schema modules will be published prior to
| the next release of UBL, and UBL commits to adopting those schema
| modules when available.
I need to break this out as a separate item for discussion.
| H.3.4 Core Component Harmonisation
| >
| > As an implementation of [CCTS], UBL supports the concept of a
| > common semantic library of business components. To achieve
| > this, UBL is working with the UN/CEFACT International Trade and
| > Business Procedures Working Group on Harmonisation, known as
| > TBG17
| > (http://webster.disa.org/cefact-groups/tbg/wg/tbg17_main.cfm).
| > This group is responsible for consistency and harmonisation of
| > business process models and core components across business
| > domains and sectors, contributing to a concise and well-defined
| > glossary of business terms, business data semantic definitions,
| > and structuring of data exchanges. Cooperation with TBG17 is a
| > continuing work item for UBL.
|
| recommend rewriting to reflect that UBL is working with TBG, not
| just TBG17 - and that TBG17 is responsible for harmonization
| across not only TBG groups, but all external standards
| organizations such as UBL who wish to work towards a common
| library.
I don't disagree with this, but I don't think it's necessary to
extend the passage beyond what it already says. We are committed
to cooperating with a lot of groups; we don't need to say that
here. People who want more information about TBG17's charter can
follow the link.
[GrimleyMJ@Npt.NUWC.Navy.Mil:]
> Agree with all of Mark's proposed changes with one modification:
>
> From Mark:
> > In UBL 1.0, all BBIE properties are declared as elements and
> > defined as complex types in the Common Basic Components schema
> > (Section 6.2.1).Alternatively, these constructs could be defined
> > in either the Common Aggregate Components schema or in the
> > individual document schemas where they are used. This issue
> > remains open, but any change in future releases should not affect
> > UBL 1.0 instances.
>
> No one has proposed defining the types in any schema but the
> CBC, so it is only some *declarations* that may be moved.
> The only elements that have been considered for declaration
> in other schemas are the Qualified BBIE Properties (e.g.
> 'AdditionalStreetName') because they are a legitimate reuse
> of an Unqualified BBIE Property (an 'AdditionalStreetName' is
> of type 'StreetNameType').
>
> So maybe a combination of a modified Jon's and Mark's:
>
> In UBL 1.0, all BBIE properties are declared as elements
> and defined as complex types in the Common Basic Components
> schema (Section 6.2.1). Alternatively, the qualified BBIE
> property elements could be declared in either the Common
> Aggregate Components schema or in the individual document
> schemas where they are used. This issue remains open, but
> any change in future releases will not affect UBL 1.0 instances.
Done.
Jon
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]