Re: [ciq] FW: UBL Address format vs. CIQ

[Michael.Roytman@vertexinc.com]

David,

If the schemas are used as a reference implementation and a specification
the documentation for the developers and testers may be generated directly
from the schema. I realize that there are data dictionaries, repositories,
etc. However, if the schema is intended to be a self-contained source of
XML message information it may be worthwhile to put the documentation into
the schema. I think that production of reference documentation is a very
time consuming process and if we choose to keep the details in the schemas
could become a push of a button.

The path from the "design-time" to "run-time" schema is very simple, since
it is only removal of documentation tags.

Regards,

Michael Roytman.


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "David RR Webber"|
|         |           <david@drrw.info>|
|         |                            |
|         |           10/14/2004 08:37 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                               |
  |       To:       "Ram Kumar" <RKumar@msi.com.au>, <Michael.Roytman@vertexinc.com>                                              |
  |       cc:       <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Rob Beauchamp" <Rbeauchamp@Initiatesystems.com>                                  |
  |       Subject:  Re: [ciq] FW: UBL Address format vs. CIQ                                                                      |
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




Micheal,

I just saw your note below about adding xsd:documentation tags to every
element.

That is truely insane!  No wonder they use "stripped down" schemas for
production.

But why bother when you do not have to?!?

The CAM template approach allows you to move that away from the schema
itself
into the registry layer - where it belongs.

I'll post the CAM document with example nouns that allows this to happen.
We're
integrating this into jCAM and Registry right now - so give it a couple of
weeks
and you will be able to download this from the jCAM sourceforge site and
run
it.

That will save you a shed load of time too - since we're finding you can
build these
noun XML entries straight out of your dictionary database with a simple SQL
script.  Martin already have several hundred UK Telecomm domain elements
done this way.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ram Kumar" <RKumar@msi.com.au>
To: <Michael.Roytman@vertexinc.com>
Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Rob Beauchamp"
<Rbeauchamp@Initiatesystems.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [ciq] FW: UBL Address format vs. CIQ


Michael,

Many thanks for this work. I will start looking into
your work today and will comeback to you.

Regards,

Ram

Ram Kumar
General Manager
Software R&D and Architecture
MSI BUSINESS SYSTEMS
Suite 204A, 244 Beecroft Road
Epping, NSW 2121, Australia
Direct: +61-2-9815 0226
Mobile: +61-412 758 025
Fax: +61-2-98150200
URL: www.msi.com.au



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.Roytman@vertexinc.com
> [mailto:Michael.Roytman@vertexinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:57 PM
> To: Ram Kumar
> Cc: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org; Rob Beauchamp
> Subject: Re: [ciq] FW: UBL Address format vs. CIQ
>
>
> CIQ TC,
>
> here are the updated versions of xNL-Basic and xNL-Advanced
> that I have adjusted to reflect the UBL Name and Design rules.
> The changes were made in the following areas:
>    Namespace [NMS4]
>    Attributes and attribute groups [GNR9]
>    The term "Indicator" should be abbreviated to ID [Appendix
> B]. I have
>    not made the change since I, personally, do not like abbreviations.
>    There is a partyNameKey attribute, which I think should be
> renamed to
>    partyNameIdentifier, since Key is a bit misleading.
>    xsd:anyAttibute must not be used [GTD2]
>    xsd:any element must not be used [ELD9], I do not think we
> use it, but
>    anyway
>    The biggest impact will be the xsd:documentation that needs to be
>    assigned to every element, complex type, attribute group,
> etc. I have
>    not done that yet, since we need to agree that this is
> indeed the level
>    of details we want to specify in the schemas. Moreover,
> UBL calls for
>    "run-time" versions of schemas with the documentation
> stripped down. Any
>    thoughts?
>
> I probably missed a few NDRs here, but since we do not have
> the hierarchy of code lists (or do we?), the final document
> rules (Invoice, TaxFiling,
> InsuranceClaim) do not apply to CIQ.
> Comments and questions are welcome.
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Roytman.
>
> (See attached file: xNL-Advanced-3.0.6.xsd)(See attached file:
> xNL-Basic-3.0.6.xsd)(See attached file: UBL-NDR-Checklist-1.0.pdf)
>
>
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> |         |           "Ram Kumar"      |
> |         |           <RKumar@msi.com.a|
> |         |           u>               |
> |         |                            |
> |         |           10/12/2004 08:44 |
> |         |           PM               |
> |         |                            |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------|
>   |
>                                                                     |
>   |       To:       <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org>
>                                                                     |
>   |       cc:       "Rob Beauchamp"
> <Rbeauchamp@Initiatesystems.com>
>                                 |
>   |       Subject:  [ciq] FW: UBL Address format vs. CIQ
>                                                                     |
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> CIQ TC,
>
> FYI regarding UBL and CIQ from Tim McGrath of UBL.
>
> Michael,
>
> You have promised to look into the compatibility between NDR
> of UBL and CIQ. Can you please advise of your progress on
> this? Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ram
>
> Ram Kumar
> General Manager
> Software R&D and Architecture
> MSI BUSINESS SYSTEMS
> Suite 204A, 244 Beecroft Road
> Epping, NSW 2121, Australia
> Direct: +61-2-9815 0226
> Mobile: +61-412 758 025
> Fax: +61-2-98150200
> URL: www.msi.com.au
>
>
>
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:43 AM
> To: Colin.Wallis@ssc.govt.nz
> Cc: jon.bosak@sun.com; Ram Kumar
> Subject: Re: UBL Address format vs. CIQ
>
> thank you for your support of UBL.  i will attempt to address (pun
> intended) your comments, but this is merely my own opinion
> and not necessarily that of the UBL technical committee.
>
> personally, i had thought UBL had shifted towards xNAL not
> away from it.
> perhaps you can give some examples? we deliberately include
> the xNAL terms as synonymous business terms in our library.
> in fact, we have had a continuous dialogue with the CIQ team
> throughout UBL's development.  you may also be aware that CIQ
> are not the only players working on standards for addressing
> and UBL has tried to accomodate the work of various ISO
> groups, the UN/ECE as well as our own team of ontologists.
>
> you mention UBL's flexibility.  we have tried to take an
> 80/20 approach to business requirements.  we know that very
> few implementors will be able to use UBL without some form of
> customization.  we have tried to provide a common base on
> which these customization are built.  this is important to
> the points that follow.
>
> the main issues why UBL could not simply 'use xNAL' are:
> * xNAL does not define a single address structure.  it is a
> rich vocabulary that can be used to structure various
> different forms of addressing.  two parties using xNAL may
> not have any more compatibility than two using two different
> vocabularies. UBL must have only one way to form an address.
> so we wwould still need a UBl implementation of xNAL that may
> not be the same as NZ Government, etc., etc..
> * xNAL sometimes uses the concept of qualifying values for
> its semantic names.  you mention thoroughfare and this is a
> case in point.  unless parties subsequently agreed how to
> qualify thoroughfare - they may well use two different ways
> of defining street or avenue, etc..  UBL could have provided
> these qualifiers for our requirements but this breaks the
> design philosophy UBL was built on.  i believe that taking
> this approach recreates the problems people had with
> EDI-based vocabularies.
> * the requirement for addresses in UBL is not simply for
> postal services or CRM applications - xNAL's primary target.
> this is why xNAL has a much more sophisticated data model.
> * the actual XML syntax used by xNAL is not the same as UBL's
> XML naming and design rules.  the technical people in UBL
> tell me this would make using actual xNAL schemas difficult
> and UBL would have to recreate xNAL in its own schemas.  we
> then have a maintenance issue with keeping synchronized into
> the future.
>
> these are all the practical results of separate initiatives
> developing standards.  in this situation, the best we can
> hope to achieve is some form of interoperability.
> specifically, this would mean being able to map an address
> presented in a UBL document to something equivalent in an
> xNAL format and vice versa.  To this end UBL provides the
> equivalent xNAL terms in our model (something we dont do for
> any other vocabulary).  but as you point out this is not a
> clean map - today.
>
> looking forward, i am aware that the CIQ team are considering
> using UBL's XML  naming and design rules for future releases.
>  this will resolve at least one the issues above.
>
> personally, i am a supporter of the work of the CIQ team and
> would like to see convergence.  It is feasible that UBL 2.0
> may be closer to xNAL ?.??
> but this would need to be evolutionary.  in fact, i am
> meeting Ram Kumar, the chair of the CIQ team, in two weeks
> time and we shall certainly be talking about these issues.
>
>
> PS
> i hope i am not being presumptuous by including Ram and Jon
> in this response.  i think they both have an interest in the matter.
>
> Colin.Wallis@ssc.govt.nz wrote:
>       Hi Tim
>
>       I got your contact details from Jon Bosak. Jon and I
> talked on the
>       phone at the recent e-gov OASIS meeting.
>
>       I expressed some concerns around the shift from the
> early UBL drafts
>       which used CIQ exclusively, to V1 where some of those
> element names
>       have been replaced. Also I am not sure if any testing
> of UBL address
>       structures against UPU address structures has been done.
>
>       I know terms like "thoroughfare" are not the most user
> friendly and
>       in NZ where xNAL is mandatory for government agencies
> data exchange
>       we have had heated discussions on such issues. That
> said, we have
>       stuck to it because there is logic in it, after you
> have used CIQ for
>       a while. Even in our own environment, there are
> addresses which do
>       not easily (semantically) fit UBL's "StreetType" and
> you would find
>       that in OZ too before even looking elsewhere in the world.
>
>       I know UBL is flexible enough to pretty much put
> whatever elements
>       you want in there, but it becomes a real pain getting
> that agreement
>       across a whole spectrum of parties, altering parsers to
> suit etc etc.
>
>       I don't know how much deep thought was put into this
> change and if it
>       is irreversible?
>
>       That said, I fully support UBL and what it is trying to achieve.
>
>       But I have to raise this issue as it will potentially
> hamper the rate
>       of adoption in NZ govt.
>
>       Cheers
>
>       Colin
>
>       Colin Wallis
>       e-GIF Business Analyst
>       e-Government Unit - State Services Commission
>       T: 04 495 6758
>
>
>       http://www.e-government.govt.nz
>
>
>
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ciq/members/leave_workgroup.php
.