Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] Customization limitations
Thank you, very much, Stephen, for your post to the UBL Comment List.The committee considered your contribution during its meeting of March 26, 2014:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201403/msg00021.htmlAccordingly, we have created a ticket so as not to lose sight of your contribution when it comes time to work on customization and implementation guidelines:
https://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/UBL-3We trust this will satisfy your comment, and we invite you to contribute more thoughts in this regard for us to consider in the future.
Thank you, again! We very much value your input. . . . . . . . . Ken At 2014-03-22 10:48 +0000, Stephen D Green wrote:
Dear UBL TC, This is a comment to point out a weakness in reliance on customization to implement UBL which might need to be noted in future documents about customization and implementation of UBL (perhaps if any revisions are made as a result of the PAS submission). This comment also incidentally supports the decision to exclude a formal calculation model from the UBL semantics so far. There seems to be a serious limitation in the subset concept typically applied to customizations, not only of UBL documents but perhaps more generally too, in that in order to define the semantics of a subset, there may be unintended variation introduced between the semantics of the subset and the semantics of the superset. When this semantics variation involves the calculation model (such as when a subset is made of a customization which includes a calculation model), I think it is likely to have adverse side-effects. For example, in a document there may be an entity to apply a rounding value to amount totals; if the subset does not include this entity but the subset includes a calculation model, it is possible that the calculation model will exclude the rounding value. This factor may be irrelevant if the subset does not allow inclusion of non-subset entities outside its own syntax in documents. However, if the subset does allow a document to include the rounding value then its semantics and in particular its calculation model will need to handle this as an issue. In such a case, I think UBL needs to warn implementers, the designers of the semantic subset need to be aware and make it clear how such a document is to be handled. The same applies, I think, to the case of multiple subsets where interoperability is sought between them. I suggest this be noted in future UBL documents and perhaps some other means be used to warn UBL implementers. Best regards ---- Stephen D Green
-- Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL & code list classes: Melbourne, AU May 2014 | Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training | Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm | Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ | G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com | Google+ profile: http://plus.google.com/+GKenHolman-Crane/about | Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal | --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com