Re: [ubl-dev] Best practice for adding information to UBL entities?

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Juha,

Your JPG did not email fully - but I would suggest you can
avoid these issues by using a CAM template to augment the
original schema and provide exact details to your partner
of what it is you are doing - with context flags to choose the
specific structure varient you need (or additions to) - and
the ability to fully validate content to conform to those
template rules.  You can choose to not label the extensions
with a new prefix, or add new prefix as you require.

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juha Ikävalko" <juha.ikavalko@tieke.fi>
To: "UBL-Dev" <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:51 AM
Subject: VS: [ubl-dev] Best practice for adding information to UBL entities?


I also have one question related to customization, more precisely to
namespaces:

" 3.4. Use of namespaces

Every customized Schema or Schema module must have a namespace name
different from the original UBL one. This may have an upward-moving ripple
effect (a schema that includes a schema module that now has a different
namespace name must change its own namespace name, for instance). However,
it should be noted that all that has to change is the local part of the
namespace name, not the prefix, so that XPaths in existing XSLT stylesheets,
for instance, would not have to be changed except inasmuch as a particular
element or type has changed."

Have I understood this right, please see the attached image. If I'm right,
could someone explain how I communicate to others that I'm really using e.g
the original UBL Address type as I don't have any reference to
"urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-1.0"
. Of course, one can figure it out by comparing those two, but it's not as
implicit as it could be.

It would be nice to "<include>" UBL CAC schema to my customized CAC schema
and define only the customized types and element in my CAC namespace. But as
I have understood it, the included schema document must either define the
same targetNamespace as the including document or not define a
targetNamespace at all.


Juha Ikävalko
TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehittämiskeskus ry
TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre
Salomonkatu 17 A, 10th floor
FI-00100 Helsinki
Tel +358 9 4763 0410, Fax +358 9 4763 0399
juha.ikavalko@tieke.fi  http://www.tieke.fi


-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@softml.net]
Lähetetty: 25. tammikuuta 2005 7:58
Vastaanottaja: Nelson, Laird
Kopio: UBL-Dev
Aihe: Re: [ubl-dev] Best practice for adding information to UBL entities?

Item (1) that you mentioned is a guide within UBL.  It
makes some suggestions, and you might read it for background.

I like your (2) suggestion better.  I can't say if this is
best or not best practice, but it seems the more appropriate
way to preserve the use of UBL component schemas, obtain
interoperability up to the d^TUBL component blocks being used,
and yet be able to manage some form of customization on your
own without getting into the TC work etc.  You'd need to use
your own namespace obviously.

If making a profile for small businesses out of UBL is seen
as a form of customization, then you can read about an article by
Stephen Green and Ken Holman at:

"The Universal Business Language and the Needs of Small Business
- Expressing Constraints in XML Documents to provide a Small
  Business Profile"
http://www.itsc.org.sg/synthesis/2004/4_UBLandSmallBiz.pdf

An intro guide together with a section on "The Implementation
Challenge" by Tim McGrath can be found at:

"Universal Business Language"
http://www.itsc.org.sg/synthesis/2004/4_UBL.pdf


Finally, I'll also point you to:

"Tapping Standards from Nature - Atomic Model for Creating
Electronic Message Schemas"
http://www.itsc.org.sg/synthesis/2004/4_TappingStd.pdf

which describes in detail what my comments on (2) are.
(Apologies on this self-reference, but just that the article
is my attempt to comment on (2) in much greater detail
whenever there are such similar questions or discussions)



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Nelson, Laird wrote:

>>I am in a situation where the simple UBL order-related documents and
>>structures *almost* fit what I want to do.  I have a couple of additional
>>fields (that's it) that I need to capture in a UBL document.
>>
>>What is the best practice for doing this?
>>
>>I see two fundamental possibilities:
>>
>>1. Use some innate customization facility within UBL that I've
>>overlooked
>>2. Make my own schema for my own type of document that references
>>elements and attributes from the UBL schema, which I will have to import
in
>>my schema.
>>
>>Am I missing anything obvious?
>>
>>Any pointers to pretty much anywhere related are heartily welcomed.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Laird
>>