Re: SV: [ubl-dev] UBL Basics.. try "Productivity"....

[David Lyon <david.lyon@preisshare.net>]

G. Ken Holman wrote:
> ...
> What is key is that instances of a UBL customization are instances of 
> "standard" UBL because they all validate against the normative 
> published W3C Schema UBL artefacts.
No problem.
> I fully expect preisshare to establish your own customization of UBL 
> Catalogue for your requirements for your community of users.  
I'm starting to learn that one can't just walk in and do a 
"customisation" of UBL.

>> Anyway, I think your assertions are quite bogus in regards to blame. 
>> Simply because you already have your exit strategy in place.
>>
>> If anything goes wrong for a client, you simply respond with "oh but 
>> that isn't really UBL"... and then procede to ask for money to set 
>> the record straight for them. The client will end up confused, only 
>> after you have confused them.
>>
>> So that's chaos theory for today... life and technology will move on 
>> regardless...
>
> Please help me understand what you are saying here.  I do not wish my 
> assertions to be interpreted as "bogus" and I'm more than willing to 
> set the record/archive straight.
No point will be served by doing so. Let's move on.
>
> Stephen presented an instance he called an instance of UBL Catalogue 
> ... from my understanding of the committee definition of UBL 
> document-level conformance, it is not an instance of UBL Catalogue, 
> and I didn't want you to believe that it is.
ok.. but a catalogue/pricelist is such a simple business document. If 
somebody asks for a price on something, it should be a matter of minutes 
before you can produce the output. That's how business in Asia is done. 
People can't wait weeks.

If he has made a mistake, you are better spending your time going in and 
"fixing" the document with an xml editor and showing us how it should be 
done. Just attach it and send it to the list for everybody to see.
>
> Where specifically did you feel I was making a bogus assertion?  
Those are your words not mine. I don't believe that you did.

> Where did I ask for money to set the record straight?
Your email trailer:
"World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training"

> I was saying "that instance isn't UBL" because if someone attempts to 
> use it as UBL, then applications expecting UBL cannot use it ... I 
> honestly think it would be the user who is confused if I hadn't said 
> something.  
Users get confused every day. Try working with Stock Exchange dealers.. 
a lot of them don't know how to power on a computer or get through a 
typical user login screen. Point is, don't worry about it. That's what 
good support people are there to handle.

> And all I'm asking is that any hocus-pocus be done behind the curtain 
> and that anything and everything that is exposed at the document 
> markup level be validated against the published UBL schemas.
That may well be.
>
> Is this more clear than how I've expressed myself earlier in this thread?
Yes. It's getting very clear now.

Thanks

David