Hi Ken,
I am going to wait for your decision; then I think that information you
provided me should be enough to complete the required changes ...
otherwise I will ask you for helping :-)
Hoping to help you in deciding, I would like to remember you as
follows:
a lot of changes from UBL 2.0 from UBL 2.1 reported below should be due
to inconsisten naming components problems; for example:
all xxx. Sales Order Identifier. Identifier are old= 0..1 new=
because we decided to allign them to the UBL 2.0 Line Item. Sales_
Order Identifier. Idetifier
(see mail from Tim
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201005/msg00018.html)
Best regards
Arianna
Il 14/07/2010 17:07, G. Ken Holman ha scritto:
7.0.1.0.2.20100714104358.02244600@wheresmymailserver.com"
type="cite">At 2010-07-14 16:37 +0200, Peter L. Borresen wrote:
Comment to report (compared between
UBL-2.1-models-20100629-1202z and OS UBL
2.0)
Cardinalities found in error: 22
"Application Response. Version Identifier. Identifier" old= 0..1 new=
|
plb: no differences found
There is a difference: the June 29 models have "Application Response.
Version. Identifier"
"Certificate Of Origin. Version Identifier.
Identifier" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: no differences found
There is a difference: the June 29 models have "Certificate Of Origin.
Version. Identifier"
"Consignment. Transport_ Contract. Contract"
old= 0..1 new= | plb:
UBL 2.0 is correct
Fine.
"Goods Item. Value. Amount" old= 0..1
new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct (Value Amount. Amount)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Item Comparison. Price. Amount" old= 0..1
new= | plb: UBL 2.1
is correct (price Amount. Amount)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Monetary Total. Allowance Total Amount.
Amount" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct (Allowance_ Total Amount. Amount) (the concept
is
total amount)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Monetary Total. Charge Total Amount. Amount"
old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct (Charge_ Total Amount. Amount) (the concept is
total
amount)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Monetary Total. Tax Exclusive Amount.
Amount" old= 0..1 new= | plb:
UBL 2.1 is correct (Tax Exclusive_ Amount. Amount) (but Tax Inclusive
should
be updated as well)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Order Change. Customer Reference. Text" old=
0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.0 is correct (actual both can be correct, but I see no
reason why
this has changed)
Fine.
"Order Change. Sales Order Identifier.
Identifier" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Order Change. Sequence Number. Identifier"
old= 0 new= 1 |
plb: none of them are correct: The correct term should be Sequence
Number_
Identifier. Identifier
Changing this to the UBL 2.0 name would maintain semantic equivalence
to UBL 2.0.
"Order Change. Sequence_ Number. Identifier"
old= 1 new= |
plb: same item
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Order Reference. Sales Order Identifier.
Identifier" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Order Response. Customer Reference. Text"
old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.0 is correct
Fine.
"Order Response. Sales Order Identifier.
Identifier" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Order. Customer Reference. Text" old= 0..1
new= |
plb: UBL 2.0 is correct
Fine.
"Order. Sales Order Identifier. Identifier"
old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Package. Goods Item" old= 0..n
new= |
plb: Error in 2.1 qualification "Contained" should be removed
Fine.
"Packing List. Version Identifier.
Identifier" old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.0 is correct
Fine.
"Receipt Line. Oversupply Quantity. Quantity"
old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct (Oversupply is a qualifier just like "short" in
Short_ Quantity)
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0?
"Signature. Validator Identifier. Identifier"
old= 0..1 new= |
plb: UBL 2.0 is correct
Fine.
"Status. Sequence. Identifier" old= 0..1
new= |
plb: UBL 2.1 is correct. (OPS: Status in 2.0 has a ASBIE called "text")
Do we keep the old name for semantic equivalence to UBL 2.0? I'm not
sure what more you are trying to say about the ASBIE.
None of this will affect the names in the
schema
Granted, but in our correspondence with UN/CEFACT and in the publishing
of the normative definitions, the Dictionary Entry Name has been the
unique key across all of UBL. Using the correct DEN for new items is,
of course, appropriate. Above where you say the DEN name was incorrect
in UBL 2.0 and is correct in UBL 2.1, I'm of the opinion we keep the
incorrect UBL 2.0 DEN for legacy purposes and consistency of
definitions between UBL 2.0 and UBL 2.1.
This will become important when I (eventually!) get around to creating
the public subject identifiers (PSIs) for UBL. The semantics of the
constructs in UBL 2.0 are, supposedly, unchanged in UBL 2.1, because of
backwards compatibility.
The schemas are normative. The definitions are normative. The DEN is
the unambiguous key to the definitions. I think this gives the UBL 2.0
dictionary entry names privileged status.
At today's teleconference let's decide if we keep the DEN unchanged
from UBL 2.0 in UBL 2.1 even if it was wrong in UBL 2.0. I think we
should accept that we made the mistake then and keep living with it,
making sure in UBL 2.x any new constructs are carefully crafted. And
perhaps we should annotate the models in column "U - Analyst Notes"
that we are accepting the incorrect name for backward compatibility.
Two alternatives are we start building our semantic libraries (such as
the PSI project) only on UBL 2.1 and not on UBL 2.0 ... or we have two
names in the semantic libraries for the same concept: the incorrect
UBL 2.0 name and the correct UBL 2.x name. And do we update our
submissions to UN/CEFACT with the repaired names?
I suppose I can live with any of the three decisions, but I want the
committee to understand the nuances between the three. We've been
focused on schemas, but I see a growing reliance in the dictionary
entry names.
Arianna, once this decision is made, do you need more information to
complete the changes above?
. . . . . . . . . . . Ken
--
XSLT/XQuery training: after http://XMLPrague.cz 2011-03-28/04-01
Vote for your XML training: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/i/
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3003 - Release Date: 07/13/10 20:36:00
|