[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Processing models for homogenous and heterogeneous UBL deployments
Just catching up with this. Let's discuss starting next week. We have a lot to get through first. Jon G. Ken Holman wrote: > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]