[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Agenda, 18 November 2004
The UBL Software Subcommittee will meet on 19 November 2004 The Atlantic call will occur at 16H00 - 17H00 UTC : 09h00 - 10h00 Thursday San Francisco 12h00 - 13h00 Thursday Washington 17h00 - 18h00 Thursday London Midnight - 1:00 Friday Singapore http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=28&month=10&year=2004&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 ** The Pacific call will not be held this week. ** ############################################# STANDING INFORMATION FOR UBL CONFERENCE CALLS U.S. domestic toll-free number: (866)839-8145 Int. access/caller paid number: (865)524-6352 Access code: 5705229 ############################################# Agenda: 1. Continued review of AIs from EF/SS alignment. I pulled the alignment and 1.1 AIs from the ssc f2f report (attached) for our discussion. + EF alignment: Change CCT/UDT/SDT spreadsheets to use 'Content' value. + EF alignment: For BinaryObject only have 'Content' and characterSetCode' in SS. + EF alignment: David explain how the names for CCs and SCs for secondary RTs are currently generated by EF. + EF alignment: Remove trailing space from SDT spreadsheet. + EF alignment: Depending on 1.1 decision, remove UBL-specific codelist attributes (prefixid, desc, credits) from SS. + EF alignment: Remove value from 'name' row(s) in SDT SS. + EF alignment: Complete SDT import functionality. + 1.0.1: Remove trailing space from SDT spreadsheet. + 1.0.1: Add white space trimming in EF. + 1.0.1: Remove format attribute from spreadsheet NumericType. + 1.1: EF suggest other way to model secondary RTs. + 1.1: Change CCT and UDT spreadsheet to use 'Content' value. + 1.1: Fix order of the supplementary components in CCT/UDT/SDT for "Code. Type" and "Identifier. Type"in SS. [Also, neither schema nor ss are in CCTS order for BinaryObjectType.] + 1.1: Find out if EF can preserve extra ss information (columns, etc). + 1.1: Decide if we need UBL-specific code list attributes (eg. codeListNamespacePrefixID, codeListDescription, CodeListCredits) + 1.1: Figure out a better way to represent additional CodeList attributes. EF suggests columns for these. + 1.1: Need to align SDT SS, Codelist model and EF import ability. Dependency on completion of Codelist model. + 1.1: GEFEG provide list of the columns from the TBG17 SS they want to see in the UBL SS. + 1.1: Review schema format (GSX1). + 1.1: Update schemas for GSX1. + 1.1: Resolve gaps in CCTS for naming requirements for SS/EF. + 1.1: ELN4 conformance - Check that SS/EF follow rule + 1.1: DOC3 conformance + 1.1: respond to Mark's comment on ATN1. + 1.1: Check validity of SSM10 rule w.r.t UBL implementation. (NDR issue #10) 2. Other business.
The SSC F2F discussions focused on reviewing Spreadsheets, Schemas, EDIFIX, and the NDRs to discover alignment issues, resulting in proposals for changes to be considered for future development. We arrived at 5 basic categories/timeframes of needed changes: a) 1.0 Release Notes b) EDIFIX alignment testing c) 1.01 update d) 1.1 update e) 2.0 issues Below is a summary report by area and issue, noting actions for each of the above categories/timeframes, also indicating areas that need full TC review (indicated by "TC->" in margin). ---------------------- UBL-CoreComponentTypes ---------------------- 1. The 'Component Type' spreadsheet column (column X) needs to distinguish 'content' components from 'supplementary' components. So possible values for this column will be one of: "CCT", "Content", or "Supplementary" AIs: + EF alignment: Change CCT spreadsheet to use 'Content' value. + 1.1: Change CCT spreadsheet to use 'Content' value. 2. The order of the supplementary components for "Code. Type" and "Identifier. Type" should be aligned with the one used in the CCT schema and in CCTS 2.01. [** Also, neither schema nor ss are in CCTS order for BinaryObjectType. **] AIs: + 1.1: Agree to fix in SS. However, UBL will not formalize the sequence of bbies in the ss model, as those are ordered for human readability. 3. Need to resolve handling of "Property Term Possessive Noun" and "Property Term Primary Noun" - EF is only able to store these entries as user notes. UBL uses them for modeling. AIs: + 1.1: Sylvia find out if EF can preserve those columns (even if there are values in them, and even if it can't preserve the values). Then if EF can regenerate those columns on output (even without the values) we'll just regenerate the values manually (by adding the formula). Regardless of how EF manages those columns internally, the output UBL SS format (columns and column order) needs to remain as it is in 1.0. 4. [MDC1] UBL Libraries and Schemas MUST only use ebXML Core Component approved ccts:CoreComponentTypes. The UBL CCT schema implements ebXML approved cctypes according to CCTS Table 8-1, with three exceptions: numeric, datetime, and indicator. The UBL CCT schemas do not contain the 'format' attribute for these three types. These have been cast as 'simple' types (which precludes adding more attributes). AIs: TC-> + 1.0 Release Notes: Format attribute in ss but not schema. + 1.0.1: Remove format attribute from spreadsheet NumericType. TC-> + 1.1: Consider the impact of the fact that we have removed the 'format' attribute and constrained these as simple types. Is this really how we want these represented in the future? 5. The ss and schemas of cctypes are currently quite different because EF is not reading the CCT spreadsheet - the CCT schema is generated manually as was originally provided by Gunther. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Decide on need for generation of CC Types. 6. [STD1] For every ccts:CCT whose supplementary components map directly onto the properties of a built-in xsd:Datatype, the ccts:CCT MUST be defined as a named xsd:simpleType AIs: TC-> 1.1/ 2.0: CCTypes schema originally done by Gunther and Garret. As UBL develops more ccts and rts, will drive the need for more dts. Need for analysis of new ccts, looking at available built-in dts to see if one meets the requirements. Currently ATG does this. Need to decide whether there is a need for UBL to continue to provide a cc types schema. 7. [CTD7] Every unspecialised Datatype must be based on a ccts:CCT represented in the CCT schema module, and must represent an approved primary or secondary representation term identified in the CCTS. In UBL, simple type doesn't restrict underlying the cct, but restricts directly the buil-int xsd types. Not all udts are direct restrictions. This rule doesn't provide for this. Basically there is a difference in approach between two atg and ubl: in ubl, the udt schema module directly imports the cct shcema module and every dt has a direct 1:1 realtionship with its corersponding cct. In ATG, to make (EF) tool development easier, every cct in is defined as a complex type and every sc is present as an attribute of that cct. Then, also to levearege buil-in dts, there had to be a break in the direct link between cct and udt (because you can't turn a complex type into a simple type). So that is what is meant by saying the constructs in udt are 'based on' cct. Some are simple types where as others are facets of built-in xsd dt representations. TC-> AI: 1.1/2.0: Need resolution on CCTypes in UBL. -------------------------- UBL-UnspecializedDatatypes -------------------------- 1. The 'Component Type' column (column X) needs to distinguish 'content' components from 'supplementary' components. So possible values for this column will be one of: "DT", "Content", or "Supplementary" AIs: + EF alignment: Change UDT spreadsheet to use 'Content' value. + 1.1: Change UDT spreadsheet to use 'Content' value. 2. Same as #2 above. 3. Same as #3 above. 4. "Binary Object", and its secondary representation terms ("GraphicType", "PictureType", "SoundType", and "VideoType") have "format" and "mimeCode" attributes in the spreadsheets, but are missing these attributes in the schemas, which instead have one attribute "characterSetCode". [** CCTS has additional attributes of filename, encodingcode, and uri which are missing in both udt ss and schema. **] AIs: + EF alignment: only have 'Content' and characterSetCode' in SS. TC-> + 1.1: Figure out which of these attributes we want to include in the long term. 5. CCTS 2.01 doesn't specify how to generate Dictionary Entry Names for Supplementary Components of Secondary Representation Terms. UBL has implemented the Supplementary Components for both Primary and Secondary Representation Terms as components of Unspecialized Datatypes following the same naming rules as for CCTs (and CCs and BIEs). That is the ISO 11179 ObjectClass+PropertyTerm+RepTerm and seems a logical approach. UBL models Secondary Representation Terms (Graphic, Video, Date, Time, etc.) as being of the same Object Class as their respective Primary Representation Term, but with the Object Class qualified by their respective Secondary RT name. Example: Graphic type is of object class 'binary object' with an object class qualifier of 'graphic'. EF handles unspecialized DTs as unqualified DTs and so doesn't expect an object class 'qualifier' for these DTs. In EF, unqualified DT components should not have an Object Class Qualifier, and EF has no way to store qualifiers of 'unqualified' DTs. So that information is not being used in the schemas. Because of this EF has problems creating the Dictionary Entry Names for Supplementary Components of unspecialized DTs that represent a Secondary Representation term because it doesn't use Primary RT rules for these. So EF disregards the qualifier and uses the Secondary RT type name as the name, as it would for a Primary RT (Graphic SCs would be prefixed with 'Graphic'). AIs: + EF alignment: David explain how the names for CCs and SCs for secondary RTs are currently generated by EF. + 1.1: EF suggest other way to model secondary RTs. TC-> + 1.1: We need to resolve this difference in naming of SCs of Secondary RTs. If we determine we need DENs for these Supplementary Components then we should agree on how best to model these and what rules should be applied for their naming, as there are currently no rules for DEN creation of Content Components and Supplementary Components of Secondary RTs in CCTS or UBL. We need a UBL rule (not NDR) which would be an implementation of the CCTS naming of Secondary Representation Terms. Should here try to align this with the ATG2 expression of what they call the UDTs. Tim will look at this. 6. Same as CCT section #4 above. ------------------------ UBL-SpecializedDatatypes ------------------------ 1. Same as #1 above. 2. Same as #2 above. 3. Same as #3 above. 4. There is a trailing space in the value for the codeListURI fixed attribute of the Country codelist. It would be preferrable for EF to add a feature to do general trimming of white space (doesn't do this right now) and we must fix the SS. AIs: TC-> + 1.0 Release Notes: problem with trailing space in the value for the codeListURI fixed attribute of the CountryIdentificaton Code codelist in both the SDT spreadsheet and schema. (This effects validity of instances so people should know about it.) + EF alignment: Remove trailing space from SDT spreadsheet. + 1.01: Remove trailing space from SDT spreadsheet. + 1.01: Add white space trimming in EF. 5. Three attributes used for each of the code types in the spreadsheet (codeListNamespacePrefixID, codeListDescription, CodeListCredits) are not represented in the schemas. AIs: + EF alignment: Depending on 1.1 decision, remove UBL-specific codelist attributes (prefixid, desc, credits) from SS. TC-> + 1.1: Decide if we need UBL-specific code list attributes (eg. codeListNamespacePrefixID, codeListDescription, CodeListCredits) TC-> + 1.1: Figure out a better way to represent additional CodeList attributes. EF suggests columns for these. 6. The SDT spreadsheet incorrectly has the codelist text file filename for the "Name" attribute, "Values" column, value. EF doesn't currenlty use the sdt spreadsheet at all. Work is underway in GEFEG to be able to improve the algorithm for importing SDT SS values. Will be done in a couple of weeks. AIs: + EF alignment: Remove value from 'name' row(s) in SDT SS. + EF alignment: Complete SDT import functionality. TC-> + 1.1: Need to align SDT SS, Codelist model and EF import ability. Dependency on completion of Codelist model. ------------------------ UBL-Reusable and MainDoc ------------------------ 1. Because CCTS 2.01 doesn't know a "Property Term Possessive Noun" and "Property Term Primary Noun" we are only able to store these entries as user notes. AIs: Same as #3 above. ---------------------- Spreadsheets - General ---------------------- 1. GEFEG would like the UBL SS at minimum to have the same columns as the TBG17 SS. AIs: + GEFEG provide list of the columns from the TBG17 SS they want to see in the UBL SS. 2. [DOC2] A Datatype definition MAY contain one or more Content Component Restrictions to provide additional information on the relationship between the Datatype and its corresponding Core Component Type. If used, the Content Component Restrictions must contain a structured set of annotations in the following patterns: • RestrictionType (mandatory): Defines the type of format restriction that applies to the Content Component. • RestrictionValue (mandatory): The actual value of the format restriction that applies to the Content Component. • ExpressionType (optional): Defines the type of the regular expression of the restriction value. See Table 7-1 of CCTS. Examples of a CC RestrictionType for, say, 'String' type would be 'minimum length'. The RestrictionValue would be the actual value. There must be the above structured set of annotations for each restriction. Currently UBL has no documentation for Content Components or Supplementary Components. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Review implementation to see if we need to add anything. 3. Eventually registration of constructs in schemas should be automated so can be submitted to registration authority and metatdata will automatically go into the registristrion process for the schemas. AIs: TC-> + 1.1/2.0: Follow up on registration requirements (CCTS Section 7). 4. [GNR1] UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be in the English language, using the primary English spellings provided in the Oxford English Dictionary. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Check SS(s) element, attribute, and type names. 5. [GNR4] - [GNR6] Acronyms and Abbreviations EF checks against NDR, but if acronym is in SS it is left alone. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Resolve A&A list, usage, ownership, and maintenance. + 1.1: Align SS and Schemas with final list and rules. 6. [GNR7] UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be in singular form unless the concept itself is plural. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Check SS for conformance. 7. [ATN1] Each CCT:SupplementaryComponent xsd:attribute "name" MUST be the Dictionary Entry Name object class, property term and representation term of the ccts:SupplementaryComponent with the separators removed. If the object class is identical to the RT of the data type (or cct or whatever) then UBL removes the Object Class from the name. EF and SS do the same thing, which is different than what it says in this rule. ELN3 covers elements, but not attributes. AIs: + 1.1: Review rule for SS UBL name creation. + Also see NDR section for rule update ---------------- Schema - General ---------------- 1. [GXS1] UBL Schema MUST conform to the following physical layout ... UBL schema organization is different than GSX1: - short copyright not the same - full copyright should be at end of document - need to align order for declaration of namespaces and order of imports and follow structure outlined in GSX1 - include section head comment lines, except when section is empty GXS1 doesn't include, but UBL comment header currently does include: - "Universal Business Language (UBL) Schema 1.0" - URLs to UBL and OASIS web sites - "Document Type" - "Generated On" (date) - tribute to Mike - additional comment lines for additional clarity AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Review format + 1.1: update schemas. 2. [NMC1] Each dictionary entry name MUST define one and only one fuly qualified path (FQP) for an element or attribute. EF doesn't explicitly check this, nor duplicate DEN's/names for objects. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Clarify whether there's need for EF to explicity check this. 3. [VER1] - [VER7] Relating to use of major/minor version numbers. --------------- There is nothing in EF to automatically create version numbers. Now it is done manually; should EF consider automating this? AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Decide on versioning implementation. 4. [DOC1] The xsd:documentation element for every Datatype MUST contain a structured set of annotations in the following sequence and pattern: • ComponentType (mandatory): The type of component to which the object belongs. For Datatypes this must be “DT”. • DictionaryEntryName (mandatory): The official name of a Datatype. • Version (optional): An indication of the evolution over time of the Datatype. • Definition (mandatory): The semantic meaning of a Datatype. • ObjectClassQualifier (optional): The qualifier for the object class. • ObjectClass(optional): The Object Class represented by the Datatype. • RepresentationTerm (mandatory): A Representation Term is an element of the name which describes the form in which the property is represented. • DataTypeQualifier (optional): semantically meaningful name that differentiates the Datatype from its underlying Core Component Type. • DataType (optional): Defines the underlying Core Component Type. UBL supplies only the mandatory set (ComponentType, DEN, Definition and RepresentationTerm). Even though the SS have Object Class and Object Class Qualifier, EF can't create these optional information items because no rules in ccts. Stems from same problem described in UDT section #5. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Resolve gaps in CCTS for naming requirements for SS/EF. 5. [DOC2] A Datatype definition MAY contain one or more Content Component Restrictions to provide additional information on the relationship between the Datatype and its corresponding Core Component Type. If used, the Content Component Restrictions must contain a structured set of annotations in the following patterns: • RestrictionType (mandatory): Defines the type of format restriction that applies to the Content Component. • RestrictionValue (mandatory): The actual value of the format restriction that applies to the Content Component. • ExpressionType (optional): Defines the type of the regular expression of the restriction value. See Table 7-1 of CCTS. Examples of a CC RestrictionType for, say, 'String' type would be 'minimum length'. The RestrictionValue would be the actual value. There must be the above structured set of annotations for each restriction. Currently UBL has no documentation for Content Components or Supplementary Components. AIs: TC-> + 1.1: Review implementation to see if we should be adding anything. 6. [ELN4] A UBL global element name based on a qualified ccts:BBIEProperty MUST be the same as the name of the corresponding xsd:complexType to which it is bound, with the qualifier prefixed and with the word "Type" removed. It could be that there are elements whose names consist of qualifier property term, property term, and representation terms that refer to a complex type with the name having only the property term and representation term. AIs: + 1.1: David check correctness of above statement of current situation. + 1.1: Check that SS/EF follow rule. 7. [10.11.04 Anne] Regarding [DOC4] The xsd:documentation element for every Basic Business Information Entity MUST contain a structured set of annotations in the following patterns: • ComponentType (mandatory): The type of component to which the object belongs. For Basic Business Information Entities this must be “BBIE”. • DictionaryEntryName (mandatory): The official name of a Basic Business Information Entity. • Version (optional): An indication of the evolution over time of the Basic Business Information Entity. • Definition(mandatory): The semantic meaning of a Basic Business Information Entity. I don't see that we have any documentation for our BBIEs, at least not in the CBC schema. Is this where it would be? AIs: + 1.1: Check documentation for BBIEs. --- NDR --- 1. [GXS6] The xsd:final attribute MUST be used to control extensions AIs: + 1.1: Recommend to remove as this is already an xsd tenet. No need to restate here and confusing where to apply. Or possibly move to CM document. 2. [SSM10] The ubl:CommonAggregateComponents schema module MUST be named “ubl:CommonAggregateComponents Schema Module” [SSM12] The ubl:CommonBasicComponents schema module MUST be named “ubl:CommonBasicComponents Schema Module” [SSM14] The ccts:CoreComponentType schema module MUST be named “ccts:CoreComponentType Schema Module” [SSM17] The ccts:UnspecialisedDatatype schema module MUST be named “ccts:UnspecialisedDatatype Schema Module” [SSM19] The ubl:SpecialisedDatatypes schema module MUST be named “ubl:SpecialisedDatatypes schema module” AIs: + 1.1: Need NDR clarification on where these terms are to be used. + 1.1: The plurality of the word 'Type' in the module name for SSM19 doesn't agree with that of of SSM14 and SSM17. UBL implements this word as a plural for all 3 cases (agrees with SSM19, but not SSM14 or SSM17). Need alignment of rules. + 1.1: Should there be rules for the CCP also? 3. [DOC1] The xsd:documentation element for every Datatype MUST contain a structured set of annotations in the following sequence and pattern: • ComponentType (mandatory): The type of component to which the object belongs. For Datatypes this must be “DT”. • DictionaryEntryName (mandatory): The official name of a Datatype. • Version (optional): An indication of the evolution over time of the Datatype. • Definition (mandatory): The semantic meaning of a Datatype. • ObjectClassQualifier (optional): The qualifier for the object class. • ObjectClass(optional): The Object Class represented by the Datatype. • RepresentationTerm (mandatory): A Representation Term is an element of the name which describes the form in which the property is represented. • DataTypeQualifier (optional): semantically meaningful name that differentiates the Datatype from its underlying Core Component Type. • DataType (optional): Defines the underlying Core Component Type. AIs: + 1.1: Resolve discrepancy between Rule S28 of CCTS, which says that DTs must include Qualifier Term (mandatory), but DOC1 has 4. [DOC3] A Datatype definition MAY contain one or more Supplementary Component Restrictions to provide additional information on the relationship between the Datatype and its corresponding Core Component Type. If used the Supplementary Component Restrictions must contain a structured set of annotations in the following patterns: • SupplementaryComponentName (mandatory): Identifies the Supplementary Component on which the restriction applies. • RestrictionValue (mandatory, repetitive): The actual value(s) that is (are) valid for the Supplementary Component. Don't know where to find this information. Not in CCP. AIs: + 1.1: Need clarification/resolution. 5. [GNR4] - [GNR6] Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym for DUNS not completely specified. AIs: + 1.1: Update DUNS information in Appendix B. 6. [ATN1] Each CCT:SupplementaryComponent xsd:attribute "name" MUST be the Dictionary Entry Name object class, property term and representation term of the ccts:SupplementaryComponent with the separators removed. If the object class is identical to the RT of the data type (or cct or whatever) then UBL removes the Object Class from the name. EF and SS do the same thing, which is different than what it says in this rule. AIs: + 1.1: Change rule. Something like "If the Object Class of the Supplementary Component is identical to the Primary Representation Term of the datatype of the cctype then the Object Class will be removed." This is how cct ss, sdt and udt is probably done. 7. [CDL5] The name of each UBL Code List Schema Module MUST be of the form: {Owning Organization}{Code List Name}{Code List Schema Module} UBL uses a completely different naming convention. Both the code list declaraion and data types are in the code list schema files now. What should be in a CL file? There was intended to be a section in the schema format (as per GXS1) for code lists but this is not there right now - somehow gone. The CDL5 name relates to any time where you must refer to the code list, such as in the header or comments of the Code List or other schema files or documentation. It probably would be best to use this for the 'filename' part of the urn as well, but haven't gone there yet. Will have to look into this later. AIs: + 1.1: Revisit with new code list model. 8. [CTD1] For every class identified in the UBL model, a named xsd:complexType MUST be defined. Example: <xsd:complexType name="BuildingNameType"> AIs: + 1.1: Clarify 'class'. Should this be BBIE? 9. [CTD7] Every unspecialised Datatype must be based on a ccts:CCT represented in the CCT schema module, and must represent an approved primary or secondary representation term identified in the CCTS. AIs: + 1.1: Need clarification of what is meant by 'must be based on'. + 1.1: Need rule covering case where simple type doesn't restrict underlying type, but restricts underlying built-in xsd types, as in UBL. Not all udts are direct restrictions. 10. [9.11.04 Anne] This text appears in the NDR after SSM10: "By design, ccts:CoreComponentTypes are generic in nature. As such, restrictions are not appropriate. Such restrictions will be applied through the application of Datatypes. Accordingly, the xsd:facet feature must not be used in the ccts:CCT schema module." But it seems we do restrict (and extend) our cc types in the UBL-CoreComponentTypes-1.0.xsd. AIs: + 1.1: Check validity of rule w.r.t UBL implementation. --------- Code List --------- Revisit all rules below and any others in NDR when new Code List model is available. 1. [CTD17] Each ccts:SupplementaryComponent xsd:attribute user-defined xsd:simpleType MUST only be used when the ccts:SupplementaryComponent is based on a standardized code list for which a UBL conformant code list schema module has been created. 2. [CDL5] The name of each UBL Code List Schema Module MUST be of the form: {Owning Organization}{Code List Name}{Code List Schema Module} UBL uses a completely different naming convention. Both the code list declaraion and data types are in the code list schema files now. Need rules for What should be in a CL file? There was intended to be a section in the schema format (as per GXS1) for code lists but this is not there right now - somehow gone. The CDL5 name relates to any time where you must refer to the code list, such as in the header or comments of the Code List or other schema files or documentation. It probably would be best to use this for the 'filename' part of the urn as well, but haven't gone there yet. Will have to look into this later. 3. [CDL*] Code List rules. 4. Regarding [DOC2], can content component restrictions be used to limit the allowed values of a code list? If not, where would they be used? ----- Other ----- 1. [STD1] For every ccts:CCT whose supplementary components map directly onto the properties of a built-in xsd:Datatype, the ccts:CCT MUST be defined as a named xsd:simpleType in the ccts:CCT schema module. AIs: TC-> + 1.01: Need way to say which cct should use this rule. Otherwise it is up to tools person to figure out which do and which don't map, but that is really not a tools issue. Should be noted somewhere?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]