Processing models for homogenous and heterogeneous UBL deployments

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

Hello all,

In Montréal we talked about the "val/" directory 
and the annex on two-phase validation being 
updated for UBL 2.1 but essentially identical to 
UBL 2.0 (except for some filenames).

In other correspondence today I cited how we now 
have two processing models being discussed for UBL:

  (1) - for homogeneous deployments of UBL where all instances are at the
        same specification level, e.g. all are UBL 2.0 or all are UBL 2.1
      - the documented two-phase validation process as illustrated in the
        "val/" directory is suitable

  (2) - for heterogeneous deployments of UBL, e.g. where UBL 2.0 and
        UBL 2.1 instances are being used but a particular deployment
        is stuck on UBL 2.0 until they migrate their system to UBL
        2.1 (or any forward-compatible requirement)
      - the simple two-phase validation process is not suitable
      - the augmented process in section "4 Validation" of the public
        review draft is better suited

That brought to mind some unfinished business 
regarding documentation and packaging for UBL 2.1.

Do we need to cite Section 4 of the UBL 2.0 
customization guidelines in the UBL 2.1 hub 
document?  The same augmented processing model 
will be important to implementers of UBL 2.1 who 
need to be forward compatible with future UBL 2.x deployments.

Or perhaps more importantly for UBL 2.0 users who 
need to accommodate 2.1 instances before they can 
migrate their systems to support UBL 2.1 
instances.  The existing UBL 2.0 documented 
processing model cannot accommodate this, while 
the processing model in the customization guidelines can accommodate this.

Do we need a second batch file in the "val/" 
directory that illustrates this augmented 
process?  I don't think we can because it needs 
resources that are not committee resources (the 
instance filters).  Crane has the 
freely-available instance filter resources for 
implementers to use, but the BSD license I've 
chosen obliges the source of the materials to be 
acknowledged (which perhaps isn't appropriate in an OASIS specification).

But at the least I think we need to cite the 
Customization Guidelines from the hub document in the discussion of validation.

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

--
Interested in these classes?  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Training tools: Comprehensive interactive XSLT/XPath 1.0/2.0 video
Video lesson:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNjJCh7Ppg&fmt=18
Video overview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTiodiij6gE&fmt=18
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal