[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ciq] CIQ using UBL NDR?
Ram, There are other options. You could create a CAM template that provides a mapping between UBL an xNAL. This would allow you to be agnostic to domain vocabularies - while at the same time providing direct support for them. If you move xNAL to UBL, then you will have OAGi, RosettaNet, HL7 and others all saying that you are not in alignment with their naming standards. Better to provide CAM templates that map to each of those targets - then as they change - you can simply revise the CAM template references. You have a few options in the way you build the CAM template. I'd suggest you put the xNAL instance in the <Structure> section - and then in the <ContentReference> section put the <Item> definitions and use the UID="value" to name the UBL equivalents to each element. This is an interesting moment to do this exercise - since we've just upgraded CAM to fully support Registry based nouns storage. Attached .doc explains this and gives examples. Using this technique - potentially provides you with an instant mapping system, where you can map in and out of different tag sets by looking up the tagname in the noun dictionary and then returning the replacement UID value accordingly. Enjoy, DW ============================================================ Ram Kumar wrote: >CIQ TC, > >I am keen to know what decision we have to take regarding >seriously looking into modifying our schemas to be compatibile >with UBL NDR. There are some significant impacts to xNAL due >to this and one of them is the use of "xsd:any" element and >attribute. We use this in our schemas whereas, UBL strongly >advocates against it. > >The best way to make a decision regarding whether we want to >move towards the direction of UBL NDR for our V3.0 is to call >for a vote. > >Please let me know your views. > >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. > >
CAM Registry Access method.doc
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]