Re: [ubl-lcsc] FW: [ubl-ndrsc] Domain Namespaces

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

thanks again - as i suggested before these comments are best dealt with by
submission, following the due process of the review.  we will not be debating
them on this list until we have all comments in.


Burcham, Bill wrote:
> (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>
> > >     
> >
> >   

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142