Re: SV: [ubl] UBL, localization (customization)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

The adoption of the terms "national profile" and "industry
profile" would also distinguish these cases from ad hoc
customization.  When we discuss this at our meeting in Manhattan,
I'd like to explore whether it makes sense to distinguish
formal "profiling" for large constituencies from one-off
"customization" for individual trading partners.  Seems to me that
these are really quite different use cases.

No need to get into this now; just something to think about.

Jon

   Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:15:13 +0100
   From: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
   Cc: "'jon.bosak@sun.com'" <jon.bosak@sun.com>,
	   "'ubl@lists.oasis-open.org'" <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>

   +1 National Profile.

   Then one would also have Industry Profiles etc.

   Cheers,
   Bryan Rasmussen

   -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
   Fra: Michael Dill [mailto:dill2@gefeg.com]
   Sendt: 9. december 2005 15:16
   Til: jon.bosak@sun.com; ubl@lists.oasis-open.org
   Emne: AW: [ubl] UBL, localization (customization)

   > Maybe "developing national profiles"?
   imo profile is a very good term; it is also common in several countries,
   e.g. the national implementations of EANCOM, which is the globally most
   important EDIFACT subset with ~100000 user, are called EANCOM profiles. I.e.
   I'd expect that the term 'National UBL profile' or so would be easy to
   understand
   michael dill