Re: [ubl] Fwd: [ubl-sbsc] SBS for UBL 2

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

(resent from July 31)

At 2006-07-31 05:45 -0600, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
>I hope folk in SBSC and the TC don't mind if I so quickly
>forward this on to the TC but I'd like to get some idea of
>how the TC might feel as soon as possible before progressing
>things a lot more and time is pressing.

Thanks for being able to work more on this.

>I gather we are sticking to the plan to separate the SBS and
>the UBP (universal business processes, so-called) for UBL 2.

I think a UBP should be separate from SBS so that 
it can talk to SBS, full UBL, extended UBL, other 
subsets, etc.  I'm quite anxious to learn more 
about UBP and to think about how we can advise 
UBL users to use UBP in a formal fashion.

>I'd appreciate an update on scheduling for these packages.
>It seems they to have a separate public review but do they
>have to coincide still in their finishing of their public review,
>assuming things get that far, with the final stage of UBL 2
>committee specification process? Is that still feasible?

I don't think they have to coincide ... I'd be 
tempted to build drafts based on the UBL 2.0 
voting documents but not start the formal process 
of committee drafts and voting on SBS and UBP 
until after 2.0 is totally finalized.  We'll also 
know by then more about defining and deploying extensions.

>It seems we are approaching time to start serious putting
>together of the Small Business Subset for UBL 2.
>
>I have started a more serious draft of the content, basing
>it on three or four principles
>
>1. keep closely to the same semantic and functional limits of
>the UBL 1 SBS
>- this minimises changes to just those below
>
>2. adapt tha above to align with UBL 2, to help ensure minimal
>opportunites for data loss when translating instances between
>UBL 1 SBS and UBL 2 SBS (some elements in UBL 1 SBS are missing
>from UBL 2 and vice versa)
>- this leads to removal of certain elements
>
>3. include where appropriate changes proposed in comments,
>particularly those detailed comments just received from JPLSC
>(remembering scope factors)
>- this leads to new inclusions
>Thanks JPLSC
>
>4a. taking on board Ken's recent comments that we try to align
>the document type subsets to all use the same library subset
>- this leads to some changes
>4b. again from Ken's comment, try to produce a set of schema
>files which we might be able tyo consider actually publishing
>as part of the SBS package
>Thanks Ken

All four points sound excellent to me, Steve, 
thanks.  I'm anxious to see an SBS so that people 
interested in extensions might base them on an SBS base.

>With this in mind I have a draft spreadsheet, set of instances
>and set of schema files covering, so far, the same documents as
>those in UBL 1.0. I'm trying to think what to call it: something
>like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-InitialProcurement'
>and then the extended procurement documents could be called
>something like 'draft-UBL-2.0-SBS-1.0-ExtendedProcurement'.

Oh?  I don't think you need to distinguish these 
... I see them all as a growing list for UBL 2.0 
SBS 1.0 until it comes time to can it and vote on it.

>I have a bit of a feeling that we may need to produce a second
>minor or major version of the UBL 1.0 SBS. This is for a few
>reasons
>1. minor errors in the committee spec (not affecting the normative
>files though)
>2. main reason: to have a version for folk to use with UBL 1.0
>which better aligns with UBL 2, now that we have a good idea what
>UBL 2 will include (there would be reason to remove some elements
>such as those not found in UBL 2 and the same four points as above
>could all be included).

I'm not sure going back to UBL 1.0 will be useful 
to the community.  I'm anxious to see 
implementations and users base their work on UBL 2.0.

>Any thoughts?

If we do go back to UBL 1.0 I would like to 
revisit the XPath files and see if there is more 
schema information we can inject into files, thus 
reducing the need for applications to look in XSD files.

>One downside is that already this could fragment implementations.

Yes, that is what I was thinking above.

>I have done a fair bit of work on it as I've prepared a content
>model for the UBL 2 SBS (it was really a prerequisit to the design).

Wonderful!

>How are our timescale factors looking. I need a fair bit of time
>to work some more on the content draft but perhaps days or weeks.

We could start taking a look at your work when we meet in Montréal.

Thanks again for all your efforts Steve.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken


--
UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training:         Vårø, Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal