OASIS Universal Business Language (UBL) TC

 View Only

Further simplifications beyond subsetting

  • 1.  Further simplifications beyond subsetting

    Posted 02-07-2007 10:53
    I've just sent the message below to the ubl-dev list but
    maybe it is something UBL TC might consider. Basically,
    I'm just really pointing out that as well as a requirement
    for business applications which is solved with subsets
    there may be a requirement for software in general and
    standards such as XForms which is best solved by creating
    transformations to and from documents conforming to a
    simpler NDR. I've suggested this simpler design in terms
    of the existing NDR. It would amount to another aspect of
    customization which maybe hasn't received much consideration
    openly but which might be just as important as subsetting.
    
    Best wishes
    
    Stephen Green
    
    
    Hi Folks
    
    I've been looking at writing a schema for the file I sent recently
    for David Lyon's work and both that and my work on XForms for UBL
    has made me realise we probably want a version of UBL with a
    simpler schema design but the same model.
    
    I started with David's xml for a price list, mapped it to UBL, mapped
    that back to the original and added a few things UBL interop would
    require (not quite in that order) and ended up with some xml which
    was simple, mapped nicely to a subset of a UBL document and was
    quite readily handled in a primitive version of XForms. The need for
    a CAM template to support the pricelist xml and also one to support
    the corresponding UBL subset was quite apparent. What was then
    the next step was to cater for software such as XForms which needs
    a not-too-complex W3C XML 'XSD' schema.
    
    So now I'm looking at producing and have produced in draft an XML
    XSD schema for the pricelist BUT   it has to be a lot simpler than UBL
    2 NDR dictates, so it seems. In short I seriously doubt that XForms,
    for instance, will be able to support (XForms version 1) the UBL 2
    NDR in its present form. Two factors are:
    1. need to eliminate empty elements
    2. apparent need for validation with a schema with, if I read the
    XForms spec correctly, just one namespace (plus I anticipate client
    side validation requiring single module schemata too but there I
    might be pleasantly surprised)
    
    Conclusion: the most obvious answer (short of moving the mountain
    which might be an alternative answer but make take longer) is to
    produce some naming and design rules for a simplified but UBL-like
    subsetted document type.
    
    It might look like this
    
    1. single physical file, no imports or includes
    2. single namespace
    3. UBL rules for element and complex type naming (optional rule)
    4. all global element definitions
    5. all global complex type definitions
    6. creation of complex and simple types for reusable datatypes based  
    on those of ATG2/UBL
      but defined in the same namespace as the above and within the same  
    module/physical file
      (CCTS-compliant qualified datatypes but without any imports or  
    external namespaces)
    
    This would then be mapped to UBL-proper subsets (perhaps at model level) and
    the conformant xml files could be translated to UBL files and back  
    after client-side
    or after server-side validation based on the above.
    
    The codelist validation methodology would also need to be adapted but  
    maybe (guessing)
    the existing methodology could be used after the transformation and  
    primary XSD validation.
    
    I'd dub this NDR STUDR ('Simpler Than UBL Design Rules') but call it  
    what you like :-)
    
    Any thoughts on this?
    
    All the best
    
    Stephen Green