[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Clarification of negative vote from SAP
Hello UBL TC, Yesterday I forwarded to you the text of all the comments received during the balloting of UBL 1.0 as an OASIS Standard, voting on which ended 31 October. This material included comments received from Claus Von Riegen of SAP accompanying SAP's negative vote. On 25 October I requested a clarification of those reasons from SAP, and today I received the following response from Gunther Stuhec. The group meeting in Santa Clara today reviewed this message and confirmed its earlier finding that SAP has not raised any new technical issues with the specification as published. Tim McGrath and Mark Crawford have agreed to respond in more detail as soon as their work this week will allow. Jon ################################################################## From: "Stuhec, Gunther" <gunther.stuhec@sap.com> To: jon.bosak@sun.com Cc: "Von Riegen, Claus" <claus.von.riegen@sap.com> Subject: FW: SAP vote on UBL Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:45:14 +0100 Hello Jon, sorry for our delay. We had an public holiday. Nevertheless, I hope our answer can be considered. We have seen the most of the inconsistencies in the following areas: Redundant Information in Attribute Names ======================================== We're not agree with this decision, to add all the "Object Class" as prefix into the attribute name (see rule ATN1 in "Naming and Design Rules"). We're thinking that some of the "Object Classes" are only redundant in attributes names and makes the complete element instance unecessarally huge and undreadable. Furthermore the UN/CEFACT ATG2 is saying: "We recognize that there currently exists inconsistencies in CCTS, however we believe that the revised rules (se comment from David Kruppke) provide for a consistent representation of the supplementary components in the CCT schema module and are consistent with OAGI input." Therefore the ATG2 defined the following rule: [R117] Each supplementary component xsd:attribute "name" MUST be the ccts:supplementary component dictionary entry name with the separators and spaces removed. If the object class of the supplementary component dictionary entry name matches exactly with the object class of the parent CCT, the object class name MUST be removed. If the object class of the supplementary component dictionary entry name contains the name of the object class of the parent CCT, the duplicated object class word or words MUST be removed. If the object class of the supplementary component dictionary entry name contains the term “identification”, the term “identification” MUST be removed. If the representation term of the supplementary component dictionary entry name is "text", the representation term MUST be removed. Missing ore Incorrect Definition ================================== Some of the definitions are incorrect, like: AccountsContact/ID <ccts:Component> <ccts:ComponentType>BBIE</ccts:ComponentType> <ccts:DictionaryEntryName>Contact. Identifier</ccts:DictionaryEntryName> <ccts:Definition>identifies the department or employee by a unique identity other than their name when given as a contact.</ccts:Definition> <ccts:Cardinality>0..1</ccts:Cardinality> <ccts:ObjectClass>Contact</ccts:ObjectClass> <ccts:PropertyTerm>Identifier</ccts:PropertyTerm> <ccts:RepresentationTerm>Identifier</ccts:RepresentationTerm> <ccts:DataType>Identifier. Type</ccts:DataType> <ccts:Examples>"Receivals Clerk"</ccts:Examples> </ccts:Component> Because, the object class is not "Contact", it is "Accounts Contact"!!! Or many definitions are still missing, like the definitions of all BBIEs: <xsd:element name="ActualDeliveryDateTime" type="DeliveryDateTimeType"/> <xsd:element name="AdditionalInformation" type="InformationType"/> <xsd:element name="AdditionalStreetName" type="StreetNameType"/> <xsd:element name="Amount" type="AmountType"/> <xsd:element name="BackorderQuantity" type="QuantityType"/> etc... Inconsistencies Element Names ============================= There are still incosistencies in the declared element names. The UBL NDR is saying in ELN3 tha redundant words in the ccts:ASBIE property term or its qualifiers and the associated ccts:ABIE object class term or its qualifiers MUST be dropped. But in many element names have still a part of the object class term as prefix. See following ABIE Party: Party/cbc:MarkCareIndicator Party/cbc:MarkAttentionIndicator Party/PartyIdentification Party/PartyName Party/Address Party/PartyTaxScheme Party/Contact Party/Language Therefore, we voted with "NO". Because, we had informed about these inconsistencies. For example with the following mail http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200406/msg00004.html especially with the sentence: "Furthermore, we have seen that there is no consistency in the tag names of BBIEs and ASBIEs. Some of tag names using the "Object Class Term" and others not. Some of the tag names are prefixed by namespace prefix and others not. This kind of inconsistency does not allow us an efficient and reusable implementation of the components (ABIE, BBIE and ASBIE), because ...." Kind regards, Gunther
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]