[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Agenda for Atlantic UBL TC call 30 November 2004
AGENDA FOR ATLANTIC UBL TC MEETING
16H00 - 18H00 UTC WEDNESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 2004
08h00 - 10h00 Wed San Francisco
11h00 - 13h00 Wed Washington
16h00 - 18h00 Wed London
#############################################
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
#############################################
As previously announced, Mavis will be chairing this call.
STANDING ITEMS
Additions to the calendar (http://ibiblio.org/bosak/ubl/calendar.htm)
Liaison reports (if any)
Subcommittee reports (if any)
Team reports (if any)
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION THIS MEETING
The chief technical work for this meeting is completing
processing of the list of issues reported by the SSC. We have
to resolve these issues before we can begin the new meeting
structure we decided on in Santa Clara. The minutes of the
preceding two TC calls show that we have disposed of a number
of these issues, but many still remain; at my request, Anne has
prepared a list of the ones that appear still to be pending:
see below.
With regard to Code Lists, we need a timeline showing the Code
List Team's plan to hit the 15 April 2004 deadline for last
changes to the spec.
Jon Bosak
Chair, OASIS UBL TC
==================================================================
[Numbers are taken from original SSC f2f report for cross reference.]
UBL-CoreComponentTypes:
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).
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Are there going to be Release Notes published somewhere, sometime?
- Consider the impact of the fact that we have removed the 'format'
'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.
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
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.
Actions/Questions for TC (for 5,6, and 7):
- Decide on need for generation of CC Types and UDT by UBL.
Work towards convergence with ATG2. Obvious concerns:
impact on legacy and the fact that ATG2 has always been
a moving target, hence the misalignment we find ourselves
in now, as our current implementation was put forward as
the ATG2 method. Determine actions and timeline.
UBL-UnspecializedDatatypes:
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".
- Same issue as above (CCT/UDT alignment/structure).
UBL-SpecializedDatatypes:
5. Three attributes used for each of the code types in the spreadsheet
(codeListNamespacePrefixID, codeListDescription, CodeListCredits)
are not represented in the schemas.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Agreement from Jon that CodeListCredits are not needed any longer.
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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Need to align SDT SS, Codelist model and EF import ability.
Dependency on completion of Codelist model.
Spreadsheets - General:
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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Review implementation to see if we need to add anything.
Mark, 20041106:
The overall requirement for schema documentation is to
provide for all documentation required by CCTS. This
will position the ubl library as expressed in the
spreadsheets to be stored as ebXML conformant core
components.
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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- 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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- 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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Resolve A&A list, usage, ownership, and maintenance.
- Align SS and Schemas with final list and rules.
Mark, 20041106:
The candidates need to be discussed by the entire TC once the
list is made. Remember, it must be globally unique to be
considered. We have already violated this tenant with
non-globally unique acronyms and must exercise greater
diligence in the future.
6. [GNR7] UBL XML element, attribute and type names MUST be in
singular form unless the concept itself is plural.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- 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.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Review rule for SS UBL name creation.
- See NDR section below for ATN1 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
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Review schema layout/format
- Update schemas to agreed layout.
- Change rule accordingly for 1.1
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.
Mark, 20041106:
Remember – FQP as the DEN not CCTS defined DEN
Actions/Questions for TC:
- 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?
Mark, 20041106:
This is more than an EF issue. We are also somewhat limited by EF’s
non-registry/non-database approach. We need to decide how we are going
to handle versioning of individual components in the spreadsheet.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- Decide on versioning implementation.
- Decide on strategy for storage/registry.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
Not sure I understand the EF constraint here.
Actions/Questions for TC:
- 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.
Actoins/Questions for TC:
- Review implementation to see if we should be adding anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Mark, 20041106:
This rule was originally left in because it was internal guidance
for development of the extension methodology. There is no requirement
to use xsd:final in xsd – it is just available for use. The extension
methodology folks could just have easily said that “the annotation
documentation element will contain detailed guidance on which element
should be considered the “final” element for controlling extensions..”
I recommend the rule remains as is.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
Concur.
+ 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.
Mark, 20041106:
I would have preferred that UBL implemented in conformance to
SSM14 and SSM17.
+ 1.1: Should there be rules for the CCP also?
Mark, 20041106:
Yes.
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 it
as 'optional'.
Mark, 20041106:
We have already covered this.
Rule S28 in CCTS is on the “to be fixed” list.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
This would be information that is already available for those few
Supplementary Components who have a predefined restriction in CCTS,
or that the library developers would create as part of defining a new SDT.
May require new spreadsheet column to make more readily available for
schema generation.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
Not sure I agree with changing the rule. Would like more
discussion/thought on this.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
The code list schema modules still need to follow this naming
convention.
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?
Mark, 20041106:
In UBL 1.0 NDR we treat BBIE Properties as well as ABIEs as classes.
See the sentence preceeding the rule which explicitly states this.
We may need to separately handle type definitions for BBIE Properties
in UBL 1.1 NDR.
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'.
Mark, 20041106:
Noted.
+ 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.
Mark, 20041106:
See previous comments regarding adopting CEFACT ATG CCT and UDT schemas
which address this concern.
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.
Mark, 20041106:
Please identify exactly what restrictions/extensions are applied
in the CCT schema module. If not specified in CCTS, then that is
a fatal conformance issue. We also probably need to insert the
word specialized in front of the word datatypes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]