Re: [ubl] Idea about the structure of UBL package.

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

Hello Saito-san,

I'm not sure how to interpret the first part of your suggestion.
Since it is too late to make large-scale changes to 1.0, I assume
that these are suggestions for 1.1.

| (1) The package had better to be divided to several parts
| (folders).  The divided parts are classified by functions
| (e.g. Business Process, Business Documents, XML Schema, Examples,
| Formatting, others) or file format (e.g. pdf, gif, jpg, xls, html,
| sxc, xml, xsd).

This is how the package is currently structured.  Are you saying
that this structure is hard to use?

| (2) The order of files had better to be aligned. And all different files
| (e.g. Business Documents, XML Schema, Examples, Others) would be aligned to
| this order.
| (for example)
| BD1: Order
| BD2: Order Response
| BD3: Order Response Simple
| BD4: Order Change
| BD5: Order Cancellation
| BD6: Despatch Advice
| BD7: Receipt Advice
| BD8: Invoice
| BD9: Reusable

I think you are suggesting that all the files (regardless of type
or purpose) relating to Order should be put in an Order folder,
all the ones relating to Order Response should be put in an Order
Response folder, and so on.  Is this correct?

If so, what would you do with the files (such as the conceptual
packages) that cannot be related to document types?

Jon