RE: [ubl-psc] New issues from Northern European Subset group

["Martin Forsberg" <martin.forsberg@amnis.se>]

Regardless of subsetting-method, as long as the namespace is not changed, we have to have a BIE that states the context/subset. Even
if CPA/BPSS/Envelope can solve the issue, we can't (in Sweden at least) require all public and private parties to use it. We will
have to accept that FTP is used between VANs (Value added networks), ebMS peer to peer and perhaps ws-* when communicating cross
border in some cases.

Regards
Martin Forsberg

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] 
Sent: den 12 mars 2006 19:11
To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] New issues from Northern European Subset group

Just to mention that with the SBS subset design, the subset document is actually an ordinary UBL document, with the same UBL
namespace so these issues don't apply. The issue related to these that does apply is that the sender may wish to signal somehow to
the sender that they need the responding document to be compliant with the subset (though it would nonetheless be a vanilla UBL
document all the same). Essentially the naespace is plain old UBL so another mechanism is required for the SBS other than that
suggested. The emphasis is not on the document being semt but on the subset used for the document to be received.
It may be, importantly, that the document received, which has to be subsetted to be properly understood (by machine), is not the
response to a previously sent document (e.g. it might be a notification process document such as invoice) so this entails another
mechanism such as ebXML.

All the best

Steve

On 11/03/06, Martin Forsberg <martin.forsberg@amnis.se> wrote:
>
>
> There is definitely something wrong with the comment-page. I received 
> a strange error message a couple of hours after posting an issue. I 
> re-post it here and perhaps Betty can file it in the appropriate list.
>
>
>
> After looking at Peters issue list I see that my post is partly 
> covered by one of Peter's. Perhaps my suggestion and description can 
> give some further information.
>
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> Name: Martin Forsberg
> Organization: On behalf of Northern European Subset Group Regarding 
> Specification: UBL2.0
>
> In the ongoing work within the Northern European Subset group on 
> e-procurement an issue has come up that we need to find a solution 
> for. We are developing and defining a subset for a couple of common 
> business processes and business rules. The problem, in a nutshell, is 
> that we can't, by just looking at a document instance, see what 
> business process/context the instance belongs to. We need to identify 
> the context by looking at the instance to decide what business rules 
> (schematron), subset schema and optionally what work flow to apply. 
> The Small Business Subset SC has developed a great method of defining 
> context specific subsets, but the document instance (e.g. the invoice) doesn't reflect it.
>
> Suggested solutions:
>
> A new BIE called "Document Context Identifier" of type Identifier is 
> added on document level (0..1).
>
> By adopting the UN/CEFACT context drivers or other suitable keys, an 
> Identifier can be built.
>
> Example:
> For the Order to Invoice process defined in the northern European 
> subset, the identifier could be: NES:OrderToInvoice (Geo political 
> context + Business process context)
>
> Without this BIE, the only solution (as we see it) is to define 
> specific namespaces for every business process and that will give a 
> very negative impact on interoperability.
>
> Best Regards
> Martin Forsberg
> SFTI (Single Face To Industry, Sweden)