[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Comments on UBL
>Maybe you should start trying to implement it. Get >some experience on the coal face. :-) >David Thanks David, am trying to do just that :-) The first step is nearly complete - a potentially suitable customisation in beta ( SystML is kindly hosting it at http://www.systml.co.uk/xml/ - comments on that more than welcome). The next step is 'just add software' - plus customers would be nice :-) Software development has started, perhaps slowly at first :-) Hopefully the experiences gained will be valuable at some point as feedback to the standards. Others have done this already though and are now working with the UBL TC so the reality gap might be closing more and more. My comments about UBL/ATG2's attributes and my alarm about the possibility of haing to cater datatypes without length restrictions comes out of the initial experience of the design phase which seems appropriate to your comment about what is 'in your face' and I agree with that. It is frightening, which is why I'd attempt to break it all down into separate smaller problems and solve each in turn. Codelists was the first, which Ken has elegantly worked on. Then identifiers, which the codelists work provides for as a suggestion to extend the codelist use of schematron or other secondary validation pass(es). Then we had discussions about the restriction of string, etc in datatypes - with Joe on this list (I think that is still very much open ended and CEFACT might provide answers with their own qualified datatypes but that is just one possible solution). Size might only be partly solved by the subsetting/customisation methodologies. Complexity of the whole bundle is an outstanding issue which I'm grateful you brought up. I've experienced problems with that via developers new to UBL. I've had loads of time to think about it but it still alarms me, even after having studied the specs and helped with them for years. First thing then might be a need for a simplified implementation guide but I'd not expect to have time for that myself so I might just charge in and face the remaining issues of design head-on. We haven't yet mentioned a key concept which seems to be the need for formalising the business rules for the implementaion guide or just for the rules engine(s). They should probably be machine readable in their normative form and maybe there is room to standardise these (something I'd like to see started, much as UBL has started this with codelists). This may take more work than the validation and manipulation of the XML, codes, etc. Will we need to use CAM, say and would a subset/profile of CAM suffice? CAM itself seems complex and, like UBL, 'big' but if it can be used to reduce the effective size of the UBL problem space then it might be that a combination of CAM and UBL is smaller than the sum of the parts :-) Ontologies needed too ??? :-) All the best Stephen Green
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]