[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl] Information items in 2-prd2-cd minimal instances
Ken, Based on my experience, I have serious reservations that there can be a universal minimum subset defined by the UBL TC. Such a subset can run afoul of local, regional, and international laws which specify minimum data requirements for specific transactions. Additionally, purchasing or contract law can dictate what a minimum subset should be between trading partners. As an example, if I establish a business relationship with a EU company or government agency, I have different minimum data requirements that may be specified in their subsets or guidelines plus additional requirements specified by U.S. and California laws. If I am shipping hazardous goods, I have yet another minimum subset of data required. Finally, depending on what is specified in any purchase order or contract that I receive, I can have multiple minimum subset requirements based on the legally binding requirements of those documents. These minimum data requirements do not include additional data that I may wish to include to satisfy any best practices which my company wishes to follow. IMO, there isn't any way that a standards body can have access to all of the subject matter experts needed to consider all of the business rules and laws which would be needed to determine an internationally acceptable minimum subset. Regards, Sylvia -----Original Message----- From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:34 PM To: Universal Business Language Subject: [ubl] Information items in 2-prd2-cd minimal instances As part of the analysis of 2-prd2-cd in the context of the extension methodology and my concepts of working with minimal instances of only mandatory elements, I thought it best to supplement the XPath report files with a "minimal mandatory report" for each of the 31 document types: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=19695 Each report enumerates the absolute minimum mandatory element and attribute information items for the given document type. The smallest instance that would validate with the schema would be an instance with only (and all) these information items. The reference numbers at the left are the XPath reference number from the complete XPath file that enumerates one of every information item. I am unable to put the complete 283Mb XPath package in the repository, so I've corresponded with OASIS staff to see how I might do this. By reviewing the minimal instance information items, I wonder if the UBL subject matter experts might detect any faults in the model design. I was interested to see what information items are, I believe, those that would need to be supported in a "minimal implementation" as I described to Jay in my response quoted below. While the vast majority of transactions accepted and processed by a system would be instances meeting all of the business rules of the recipient, in a "minimal mode of operation" selectively engaged by the recipient in order to transact with a new business partner not meeting the business rules, the system could act solely on the minimal mandatory information which is guaranteed to be found in instances of *all* UBL implementations. This suspension of business rules would not be the norm as eventually the sender would change their system, or the transaction with the sender might just be a one-off, but for that period of time that the sender does not meet the complete business rules of the receiver, the receiver could transact (with the required non-electronic support information) with the minimal instances. The question is, are there sufficient mandatory information items in the minimal document models with which to do this? I hope this is considered helpful. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken At 2006-08-11 10:11 -0500, I wrote: >At 2006-07-31 16:10 +0100, Jay Cousins wrote: >>3rd para. So serendipity is conformance to the UBL model *without* >>extensions - yes? > >Yes. > >>- which makes perfect sense - but for this a UBL compliant system >>would need to implement the entire UBL model, including all optional >>content, no? > >I don't think so ... > >For example the absolute minimum invoice instance has only the >following information items: > >/in:Invoice/ >/in:Invoice/cbc:ID >/in:Invoice/cbc:IssueDate >/in:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/ >/in:Invoice/cac:AccountingCustomerParty/ >/in:Invoice/cac:LegalTotal/ >/in:Invoice/cac:LegalTotal/cbc:PayableAmount >/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/ >/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cbc:ID >/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cbc:LineExtensionAmount >/in:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine/cac:Item/ > >>If not how can serendipity apply? It's not clear to me if the minimum >>requirements are stated or not. I assume that 'minimum requirements' >>are support for the whole UBL model. > >Personally, I think that 'minimum requirements' >is support for only the mandatory elements. > >If an invoice processing system supported only the absolute minimum >elements above, and the invoice gets paid without need for *any* >optional elements, then payee gets his money from the payer without >either having to change their systems. Obviously this would probably >be an optional mode of operation, as having a number of the optional >items would often be required to meet business needs by the paying >organization. But by encouraging deployments to have such a mode of >operation, then two brand new trading partners could use their existing >implementations of UBL with an agreement to work, perhaps just one-off >or for a temporary period of time, in this "minimal mode" until such >time as their systems can be modified to meet more business requirements. > >Without propagating this concept of being able to work, even just >optionally, in such a minimum mode of operation, I'm worried that UBL >deployments will create obstacles for new trading partners to either >quickly or just temporarily do business by mandating changes to >existing implementations. > >>However, Section 5 of the document shows that a system that does >>support the UBL model is 'UBL-open'. So I think the meaning here is >>that serendipity requires a UBL-open system? Can you make this explicit? > >Yes, my thought was that a UBL-open system is one that supports the >absolute minimum in a mode of operation that suspends business rules >that would otherwise cause the instance to be rejected. > >Whereas a UBL-conformant system is one where the business rules are not >suspended and a UBL-conformant instance not meeting the rules is >rejected, but one that does meet the rules is accepted. -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]