OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] Ammendment Re: Suggestion for a basis for subsetprofile conformance clauses


Hello Stephen,

I like the idea of a basic subset (always have), and I'm happy to have
the benefit of your work on this.

A question about the test assertion approach, however.  I'm having
trouble seeing how these assertions go beyond just saying "you have to
validate against the subset schema, and in addition, these optional UBL
elements are mandatory."  (In which case, of course, you could just
modify the subset schema to that effect.)  Could you help me understand
this?

Jon

Stephen D Green wrote:
> I would refine the previous comment to say that the previous receiving 
> system
> conformance clause might not have been fully testable (since not every 
> possible
> document received will be tested). I could refine this to say that a 
> receivng system
> MUST be able to receive a document which contains every element in the 
> subset
> and every multiple cardinality element twice or more times in the document.
>  
> I would suggest that continuing along the lines of a conformance test 
> centric 
> subset profile there might be consideration of test assertions for such a
> profile, again considering testability of the assertions and the normative
> statements from which they are derived.
>  
> Here is an example of a test assertion set for, say, a conformance 
> clause relating to
> the invoice document type (there might be a clause for each type to allow
> implementations to implement just one or more document types and still
> be conformant).
>  
> It is based on an example profile which somehow lists every element 
> (ignoring
> attributes for conformance requirements except insofar as they are ever 
> mandatory
> for the UBL standard schema validity for that document type)
>  
> e.g.
>  
> Where the profile for the subsets contains statements like this:
> ...
> Statement INV004: A subset sending system which can send a subset 
> invoice MUST be able to send a document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element /in:Invoice/cbc:ID
>  
> Statement INV005: A subset sending system which can send a subset 
> invoice MUST be able to send a document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element 
> /in:Invoice/cbc:CopyIndicator
> ... 
> one such statement for each element in the subset or a table to the same 
> effect or some other
> blanket statement to this effect including reference to an overall 
> schema for the subset
> ...
>  
> The conformance clause for subset invoice sending systems would require 
> conformance to
> all these statements. Another clause for receiving systems might require 
> conformance to
> a statement that receiving systes receiving a subset invoice be able to 
> receive one with all
> elements in the subset (including multiple occurences where the schema 
> includes multiple
> occurences).
>  
> Test assertions could be presented in the form of markup like this
> -- here using OASIS (in progress) Test Assertion Markup Language:
> 
> 
> <!-- one set of normative statements and corresponding test assertions 
> for every document type in the subset and for each of these sets one 
> corresponding conformance clause for sending systems (for that document 
> type) and one for recieving systems (for that document type) -->
> <testAssertionSet xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/tag/taml-201002/"; 
> setid="ubl-subset.example.ta-set.1" setname="Invoice Subset">
> <common>
> ...
> <!-- need some bindings for prefixes used in the XPath expressions -->
> </common>
> ...
> <testAssertion id="ubl-invoice-subset.example.ta.s4">
> <!-- the actual nomative source might be a table or might rely on a 
> schema to list all elements in the subset (attributes too but these 
> might be optional) -->
> <normativeSource><derivedSourceItem documentId="..." 
> resourceProvenanceId="..." uri="...">A subset sending system which can 
> send a subset invoice MUST be able to send a document valid according to 
> the OASIS standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element 
> /in:Invoice/cbc:ID</derivedSourceItem></normativeSource>
> <target>subset sending system</target>
> <prerequisite>can send a subset document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema</prerequisite>
> <predicate>can send a document valid according to the OASIS standard UBL 
> 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element /in:Invoice/cbc:ID</predicate>
> <prescription level="mandatory"/>
> </testAssertion>
> <testAssertion id="ubl-invoice-subset.example.ta.s5">
> <normativeSource><derivedSourceItem documentId="..." 
> resourceProvenanceId="..." 
> uri="...">...</derivedSourceItem></normativeSource>
> <target>subset sending system</target>
> <prerequisite>can send a subset document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema</prerequisite>
> <predicate>can send a document valid according to the OASIS standard UBL 
> 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element 
> /in:Invoice/cbc:CopyIndicator</predicate>
> <prescription level="mandatory"/>
> </testAssertion>
> <testAssertion id="ubl-invoice-subset.example.ta.s6">
> <normativeSource><derivedSourceItem documentId="..." 
> resourceProvenanceId="..." 
> uri="...">...</derivedSourceItem></normativeSource>
> <target>subset sending system</target>
> <prerequisite>can send a subset document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema</prerequisite>
> <predicate>can send a document valid according to the OASIS standard UBL 
> 2.1 Invoice schema and containing element /in:Invoice/cbc:UUID</predicate>
> <prescription level="mandatory"/>
> </testAssertion>
> 
> <!-- one normative statement and corresponding test assertion for every 
> element in the subset for that document type -->
> ...
> 
> <testAssertion id="ubl-invoice-subset.example.ta.r1">
> <normativeSource><derivedSourceItem documentId="..." 
> resourceProvenanceId="..." 
> uri="...">...</derivedSourceItem></normativeSource>
> <target>subset receiving system</target>
> <prerequisite>can receive a subset document valid according to the OASIS 
> standard UBL 2.1 Invoice schema</prerequisite>
> <predicate>can receive a document valid according to the OASIS standard 
> UBL 2.1 Invoice schema and containing every single-occurence element in 
> that subset once and multiple-occurence element in that document twice 
> or more</predicate>
> <prescription level="mandatory"/>
> </testAssertion>
> ...
> 
> </testAssertionSet>
> 
>  
>  
> Best regards
>  
> ----
> Stephen D Green
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 July 2011 18:40, Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com 
> <mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Suggestion for a basis for subset profile conformance clauses
>      
>      
>     In the UBL 1.0 Small Business Subset were clauses which
>     I found later to be very difficult to test precisely and this
>     might make conformance testing and conformance claims
>     problematic. The introduction of conformance clauses in
>     recent standard specifications is to aid interoperability and
>     promote adoption through the clarification of what it means
>     for an implementation to conform to a standard specification.
>      
>     To promote adoption of subsets for the OASIS Universal
>     Business Language it is important to include a conformance
>     clause of set of clauses and I would suggest that a subset
>     conformance clause should target more than just the UBL
>     documents (Invoice, Order, etc) themselves but also there
>     should be a conformance clause for a sending system, one
>     for a receiving system instead of or in addition to the clause
>     for conformance of the documents themselves. I would like
>     to suggest as a basis for the clause for the conformance
>     target of sending system conformance to a set of statements
>     which amount to the sending system being able to send a
>     certain set of BIEs in a given document, as defined by the
>     subset schema for that document. I would suggest that a
>     basis for a clause for the target of a receiving system would 
>     be a conformance clause requiring that the system MUST
>     NOT reject a document merely because of the presence in
>     it of any of the BIEs as defined by the subset schema (or
>     list of BIEs, e.g. given as a set of XPath expressions).
>      
>     As a simplistic example, if a subset contains BIEs X,Y,Z of
>     which Y and Z are mandatory and X is optional, there could
>     be a set of specification requirements to the effect that the
>     sender system MUST be able to send all BIEs X, Y and Z
>     in sending that particular document (even though only Y
>     and Z are mandatory in any given document of that type).
>     A conformance clause for the target of the sending system
>     would mandate these particular statements as necessary
>     for the conformance of that system. A set of statements that
>     target the receiving system would require that the system
>     MUST NOT reject a document of that type merely because
>     it contains BIE X or Y or Z. A conformance clause for the
>     receiving system would make the statements mandatory
>     for conformance by such a system. There would be a set of 
>     statements for each conformance target that the documents
>     of that type MUST contain BIEs Y and Z because these are
>     mandatory.
>      
>     Such conformance clauses and this focus on testability may
>     help to promote adoption of any given subset and contribute
>     to successful adoption and interoperable implementations.
>      
>      
>     Best regards
>      
>     ----
>     Stephen D Green
> 
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]