UBL Naming and Design Rules SC

 View Only

[ubl-ndrsc] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Domain Namespaces

  • 1.  [ubl-ndrsc] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Domain Namespaces

    Posted 02-06-2003 22:02
    thanks Bill, This really constitutes a comment (rather two and a half comments) from NDR on 0p70 and as such we should deal with them as with our other comments. Can I ask you to use the feedback form ( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/0p70/UBL_Comment-0p1.rtf ) for these items and email this to Bill Meadows (bill.meadows@sun.com). This way we keep our our review items together and can deal with them collectively. Burcham, Bill wrote: >(This is a communiqué from the NDRSC to the LCSC. I've been appointed to >communicate our consensus on these issues.) > >There are a couple disparities between the NDR guidelines and the way the >0p70 schemas actually came together. These became evident in this morning's >NDR meeting. > >I. Namespace per Domain -- not per Document > >>From lines 650-653 in version 21 of the NDR doc >( http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/release/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc-21.do >c): > > Two higher-level "domain" namespaces are defined, one for the >"ordering" domain and another for the "invoicing" > domain. The Order Domain namespace defines message types and ABIEs >specific to the ordering domain. Similarly, the > Invoice Domain namespace defines message types and ABIEs specific to >the invoicing domain. > >We would therefore expect to see document types for Order, Order >Cancellation, Order Response, Order Response Simple all defined in a single >"Order Domain" namespace. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in 0p70. That >release assigns each document type to its own separate namespace. > >The recommendation here is that in the next UBL release we merge those many >namespaces into one, "Order". > > >II. What "Domain" Should Receipt Advice and Despatch Advice be Part of > >It's fairly clear where the ordering and invoicing document types should to, >but we don't know where to put Receipt Advice or Despatch Advice document >types. Do we need another domain or two? > >Please, LCSC, prescribe a domain/home for each of those document types. > > >III. The "Common Aggregate Types" Namespace is Bloated > >The "Reusable" or "Common Aggregate Types" (cat) namespace was designed to >contain vocabulary _shared_ between the various domain namespaces. >Unfortunately, in the 0p70 release, the cat namespace contains many >vocabulary items that are _not_ shared between the various domains. In fact >it contains the whole vocabulary sans the CCT's and the document types >themselves. > >I was about to ask LCSC to perform an analysis to partition the vocabulary >elements but in thinking about it I realize that is the _wrong_ way to >approach this. Instead I'd like to ask NDRSC (or Tools and Techniques) to >generate an analysis tool that will do this partitioning for us. Once we >find homes for the document types (in the various domain namespaces) it >should be a small matter to identify the vocabulary elements that are shared >among two or more domains. Those would go into the cat namespace. For the >remainder, each would be "pushed up" into a domain namespace. > > >-Bill > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl > > > > -- regards tim mcgrath fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142