[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] FW: [ubl-ndrsc] Domain Namespaces
(forwarded at Eduardo's request) > -----Original Message----- > From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:46 PM > To: Burcham, Bill > Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Domain Namespaces > > > Was there no talk of an "Advice" domain? Surely those two Advice > doctypes are not the last advice ones to be generated, are they? I > don't know, I have no expertise at all in this area... > > Burcham, Bill wrote: > >>(This is a communiqué from the NDRSC to the LCSC. I've been appointed >>to communicate our consensus on these issues.) >> >>There are a couple disparities between the NDR guidelines and the way >>the 0p70 schemas actually came together. These became evident in this >>morning's NDR meeting. >> >>I. Namespace per Domain -- not per Document >> >>From lines 650-653 in version 21 of the NDR doc >>(http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/release/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc >>-21.do >>c): >> >> Two higher-level "domain" namespaces are defined, one for the >>"ordering" domain and another for the "invoicing" >> domain. The Order Domain namespace defines message types and ABIEs >>specific to the ordering domain. Similarly, the >> Invoice Domain namespace defines message types and ABIEs specific to > > >>the invoicing domain. >> >>We would therefore expect to see document types for Order, Order >>Cancellation, Order Response, Order Response Simple all defined in a >>single "Order Domain" namespace. Unfortunately, that isn't the case >>in 0p70. That release assigns each document type to its own separate >>namespace. >> >>The recommendation here is that in the next UBL release we merge those >>many namespaces into one, "Order". >> >> >>II. What "Domain" Should Receipt Advice and Despatch Advice be Part of >> >>It's fairly clear where the ordering and invoicing document types >>should to, but we don't know where to put Receipt Advice or Despatch >>Advice document types. Do we need another domain or two? >> >>Please, LCSC, prescribe a domain/home for each of those document >>types. >> >> >>III. The "Common Aggregate Types" Namespace is Bloated >> >>The "Reusable" or "Common Aggregate Types" (cat) namespace was >>designed to contain vocabulary _shared_ between the various domain >>namespaces. Unfortunately, in the 0p70 release, the cat namespace >>contains many vocabulary items that are _not_ shared between the >>various domains. In fact it contains the whole vocabulary sans the >>CCT's and the document types themselves. >> >>I was about to ask LCSC to perform an analysis to partition the >>vocabulary elements but in thinking about it I realize that is the >>_wrong_ way to approach this. Instead I'd like to ask NDRSC (or Tools >>and Techniques) to generate an analysis tool that will do this >>partitioning for us. Once we find homes for the document types (in >>the various domain namespaces) it should be a small matter to identify >>the vocabulary elements that are shared among two or more domains. >>Those would go into the cat namespace. For the remainder, each would >>be "pushed up" into a domain namespace. >> >> >>-Bill >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442 Sun Microsystems Inc. | 1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612 W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC