Re: [ubl-comment] PR comment about conformance (BUSINESS DOCUMENT NAMING AND DESIGN RULES VERSION 1.0)

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thank you, Jacques, for your post to the comment
list regarding the public review of Business Document NDR v1.0:

   https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/201605/msg00000.html

We met this week and we believe we have addressed
the issues raised in this disposition of comments:

   https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=58133

We have incorporated our dispositions in this
working draft and today we agreed to create a
voting document at the end of this week to vote
on next week for our next public review:

   https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=58140

If you have any comments you would like us to
address before we create our voting document,
please respond to the comment list with your thoughts.

Thank you for your input to the process!

. . . . . . . . Ken

At 2016-05-04 23:52 +0000, JDurand@us.fujitsu.com wrote:
> PR comment about conformance on:
>
>
>
> Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The conformance section is weak in several aspects:
> (although there is progress since a very similar
> conformance section last year for UBL/NDR
> Envelope, on which we made similar comments)
> - The conformance section should clearly include
> (numbered ) "conformance clause(s)" (TC process:
> "Committee Specification or OASIS Standard level
> must include a separate section, listing a set
> of numbered conformance clauses,...")
> - Imprecise reference to normative content: it
> is not quite explicit what a Rule is, how we can
> identify these in the document. The conf clause
> should refer explicitly to either section
> numbers/titles, or to a list of rule IDs, or to both.
> - we should not need to make the conf clause
> requirements conditional to the â??context for
> which the user is utilizing these rulesâ?? as
> this leaves the door open to how do we decide of
> this  context of use - not easy to assess in a
> test suite later on. The rules themselves should
> include their "context " definition and
> unambiguous conditions for these. If there are
> very different situations of usage, then maybe
> we should have different conformance targets
> (e.g. an information bundle, a processor) with
> an appropriate conformance clause for each, and different requirements.
>
> (for more details on conf clause best practices,
> see conf clause guidelines
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html )
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are only for
> the use of its intended recipient(s). Its
> contents are confidential and may be privileged.
> Fujitsu does not guarantee that this e-mail has
> not been intercepted and amended or that it is
> virus free. If you have received this e-mail and
> are not the intended recipient, please contact
> the sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of
> this e-mail and any attachments. / Le présent
> courriel, ainsi que ses pièces jointes, ne peut
> être utilisé que par le ou les destinataires
> auxquels il a été transmis. Les renseignements
> qu'il contient sont confidentiels, voire même
> protégés. Fujitsu ne peut garantir que ce
> courriel n'a pas été intercepté ou modifié,
> ou qu'il ne contient aucun virus. Si vous avez
> reçu ce courriel sans en être le destinataire
> prévu, veuillez communiquer par courriel avec
> son expéditeur et en détruire toutes les copies et pièces jointes.


--
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training @US$45: http://goo.gl/Dd9qBK |
Crane Softwrights Ltd. _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
G Ken Holman _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ blog _ _ _ _ _ http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/posts |
Legal business disclaimers: _ _ http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus