comment Re: [ubl] Updated version of the Customization doc (v0.2)

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Further comments on the draft Customization document

It would seem to me to be important to include some guidelines
about the NDR as it relates to customization of UBL 2.0. For
example, which of the rules relate to customization which is
considered compliant and which relate to conformance and which
to both. A more precise example: it recently was asked on UBL-dev
about custom document types and with a view to creating a
compliant Requisition document schema there was a possible need
to customize the line level ABIE based on OrderLine and possibly
qualified as 'RequestedOrderLine' - the question arises, should
the rule RED2 which results in the document schema module only
containing one document element be applied to a custom document
schema such that a second module must be provided when there is
an requirement to derive and qualify a ASBIE element which it
contains. Incidentally I would suggest that forcing customizers
to produce their own 'common aggregate' and/or 'common basic'
modules might place a major overhead and chicken/egg problem
since what is 'common' is not a first clear to a customizer
when the first new document type is being produced and subsequent
new document types would each require the addition of new 'common'
elements/types and possibly therefore new 'common' schema modules
(perhaps a new 'common' module for every new document). A
related question is therefore: does compliance allow for or
encourage the use of 'internal' schema modules (not used in UBL
as yet) for elements/types other than the single document element
and type and do such modules contradict RED2 at all (since they
are included which might strictly be seen as making them logically
equivalent to a second element inside the logical document schema)?
[1].

Also, would an example of the above be a valuable addition to the
customization document?

Further, would it be valuable too to include something about how
to petition that new document types be added by UBL TC to the
existing document types in future releases?

Ref [1]:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200802/msg00005.html

Best regards

-- 
Stephen D. Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice



Quoting mavis.cournane@cognitran.com:

> Dear all
> please find attached the updated version (0.2) of the Customization
> document based on plenary review today.
>
> Regards
> Mavis and Mike