[ubl-msc] (2) Re: UBL White Paper

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM>]

[tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au:]

| On page 4 para 2., should it say "single vocabulary" not "single
| syntax"?

I meant syntax.  UBL is a particular syntax.  Part of that syntax
is a particular vocabulary, but there's a lot more to the syntax
than just the vocabulary.

But "vocabulary" reads better, so I changed it.  :-)

| On Page 6 para 4., it is reasonable to say ebMXL supports
| 'incremental adoption' and you can use UBL without any ebXML
| framework - even for internal system integration!

I added a reference to "incremental adoption," but I don't think
we want to say that UBL will work without ebXML messaging.  I
think that UBL users have to be able to rely on that much.  Is
there really any disagreement on this?

| On Page 6 "Deliverable 1", the deliverable could say "reusable
| structures that can be combined to create electronic business
| documents".

That's not literally true.  You don't have a business document
until you have something populated with data.  That's why I said

   The first UBL deliverable is a set of reusable components that
   can be combined to create electronic business forms.

Fortunately, the substitution of "schemas" for "forms" solves the
problem.

| On Page 8 "Transport/Logistics category" , the notes in
| parenthesis are un-necessary and confusing

OK.  Gone.

Jon