MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: AW: [ubl] UBL draft 11
Dear UBL TC,
Please remember, that for UBL 1.0 the agreed way to change the schema
production process was to work with a requirements list.
That means that we implemented what was in the requirements list, as long as
David did not see any contradiction between the points of that list.
I feel it is time to finalize the UBL 2.0 schema production from the pseudo
models (sorry, but I cannot agree to call spreadsheets a data model. For me
a data model is something, that at least cares about the consistency of its
parts and where developers do not have to spend their time to look for
missing blanks etc.).
That�s why such a requirements list should be set up for any remaining
changes in the UBL 2.0 schema.
As far as I remember, there was a requirement to be backward compatible with
some <1.0 versions of the UBL schemas. It is somewhere understandable that
this led to a situation where maybe the draft NDRs were not fully aligned
with the schema. Anyway, that meant that GEFEG implemented the same
algorithms as Gunther/Chee-Kai did earlier.
I can understand, that TC member(s) became enthusiastic about the announced
support of XML Spy for UBL schemas. This is certainly a good multiplier for
UBL. And certainly GEFEG�s role is only to produce
- real, consistent data models for users who prefer to take advantage of the
benefits they provide and which can be used for any localization, profiling,
interoperability etc,
- the UBL schemas (if we neglect the picking up of errors from spreadsheets)
and
- to support the documentation generation in different formats.
But we would like to produce UBL schemas, which are consistent, technically
correct and NDR compliant. And we would not like to get blamed after all the
man months of work which we invested because of non compliance between NDR
and schemas.
That�s why I ask to provide us with a requirement list for UBL 2.0.
Independent from that, who is responsible for doing the QA to check the
consistency of the NDR and the alignment of the current schemas with the
NDR? Certainly, Stephen did some of this work, but there are more technical
experts. Shall UBL continue not to fully align its NDRs with its Schemas?
Such a QA work should not be done by the GEFEG as the implementing party.
Certainly, there are just small inconsistency issues, if any. But I think,
these issues should be mentioned once � and that is, what I do with this
email. I think, that UBL users deserve quality.
Best regards
Michael Dill
GEFEG mbH
www.gefeg.com
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Dezember 2005 17:22
An: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [ubl] UBL draft 11
After a brief perusal, this set of
documents looks very good.
Congratulations Gefeg, PSC, all.
All the best
Steve