I hope my comments help in explaining what may be a
misunderstanding.
Perhaps we should have made clear that the
vote was on the UBL package and that the NDR document is still under
development.
[GS] This is
correct.
jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:
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.
you will be pleased to note that the NDR document for UBL is
currently being modified to align with ATG2.
[GS] That is very nice that we'll get only one NDR
document at one time.
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"!!!
you are correct the defintion could be tighter, but i hardly think this
is prohibitive to using UBL.
[GS] This is only a minor comment from our site.
But the semantic and the clear and unambiguous description of this semantic
is the most important information in all BIEs. You need for all
BIE a perfect description and handling instructions. Otherwise it is not
possible, to implement and use these BIEs in the
applications.
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...
UBL does not give semantic defintions for Basic BIEs. They are
defined when they are used in a context - that is, within an aggregate
structure. Using Amount as an exmaples - it will have a different
defintions when used in PriceAmount
Allowance Charge. Amount is
defined as "specifies the allowance or charge amount"
Base Price.
Maximum_ Amount. Amount is defined as "specifies the maximum amount in a
range for which the price applies"
LineItem.
LineExtenstionAmount is defined as "the monetary amount that is the
total for the line item, including any pricing variation (allowances,
charges or discounts) but not adjusted by any overall payment settlement
discount or taxation. (equals BasePrice multiplied by Quantity, plus
AllowanceCharges)"
[GS] This definition must be placed within BBIE, because
only this definition helps us to understand, how we can use and implement
these BIEs. Ok, "Amount" is understandable for us. But
there are BIEs defined, which must be explained in detail and
under which circumstances we have to use these BIEs - like
"AdditionalInformation" oder "BackorderQuantity". This is also the lack of
the most of the other business document standards. They can't easily
implemented into application, because the most of their definition aren't
indisputable.
In fact, you picked up a
case where we hadn't done this very well in your comment on
AccountsContact.
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
I am not sure if I understand this, but I cannot see any Qualifiers for
Object Class or Properties in the Party ABIE.
If you mean that three
of the associated ABIEs have a name that begins with the word Party then
these are not qualified names. It is just that in the English language
we have no better word for describing the Object Class that describes the
TaxScheme used by a Party than the term "PartyTaxScheme", likewise with
PartyIdentification and PartyName. These are not TaxScheme qualified
by Party. It is just terminology that gives the impression the names
are duplicated - it is not the true case.
This is shown in the schema
documentation as...
<xsd:element
ref="PartyTaxScheme" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xsd:annotation>
<xsd:documentation>
<ccts:Component>
<ccts:ObjectClass>Party</ccts:ObjectClass>
<ccts:PropertyTerm>Party Tax
Scheme</ccts:PropertyTerm>
<ccts:AssociatedObjectClass>Party Tax
Scheme</ccts:AssociatedObjectClass>
</ccts:Component>
</xsd:documentation>
</xsd:annotation>
</xsd:element>
[GS] The rule [ELN3] says:
"A UBL global element name based on a
qualified ccts:ASBIE MUST be the ccts:ASBIE dictionary entry name
property term and its qualifiers; and the object class term and qualifiers of its
associated ccts:ABIE. All ccts:DictionaryEntryName separators
MUST be removed. Redundant words in the ccts:ASBIE property term or its
qualifiers and the associated"
"Party" is a redundant and duplicate information.
Therefore "Party" must be dropped.
We're saying also in rule [NMC1] that each dictionary entry name MUST define one and only one
fully qualified path (FQP) for an element or attribute. This means
especially for "Party. Tax Scheme. Tax Scheme":
Party/TaxScheme
I guess, this fully
qualified path is readable enough (also in English language). I will also
refer to the backwards reading test described in "3_ebXML CC Naming
Conventions Draft4.doc" (see attachment). If you use the backwards reading
test for the Party/TaxScheme that you'll get "The Tax Scheme of a Party".
And if you use the same reading test for "Party/PartyTaxScheme" than you'll
get "The Tax Scheme used by a Party of a Party".
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
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160