Re: [ubl-comment] Given that they are part of 2.2 (by reason of backward compatibility)

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

Thank you, again, David, for this input.

As before I am providing an initial response in an attempt to give 
you a timely answer.  This response will be reviewed by the UBL 
Technical Committee for any additional comment.

Indeed there are no namespace considerations and it is possible to 
structure the distribution to include copies from previous distributions.

A number of considerations contributed to the decisions currently in 
play, though your input is important feedback for the committee 
regarding what to do in the future.

(1) - the provided CVA and genericode files are there as a convenience and
      do not participate in the conformance clauses of the UBL specification

(2) - the provided CVA file includes relative URIs that presume original
      installations of previous versions of UBL are found in sibling
      directories of the installation of UBL 2.2:

      http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/csprd01-UBL-2.2/cva/

    - if a user has modified, say, their UBL 2.1 distribution to incorporate
      custom changes to their code lists, their new UBL 2.2 distribution
      would incorporate their modified code lists through the sibling
      directory and the user would not have to copy their UBL 2.1 directory
      into their UBL 2.2 directory

(3) - the provided XSLT file in the demonstration directory was created using
      the provided CVA file with the original installations in the sibling
      directories and so users would only need to be concerned about previous
      installations if they were going to the effort to replace this file:

      http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.1/val/

(4) - the general principle of not having two sources for a given file was
      considered good practice by the committee and so such is limited as
      much as possible; if a given genericode file is found in two different
      locations in the OASIS document repository, which would be considered
      definitive?
    - in support of your suggestion I observe that the genericode files have
      a <LocationUri> metadata item that points to the source of the file; in
      an unchanged copy of the 2.1 file in the 2.2 directory one could use
      that information to see where the original location of the file is found

I hope this feedback helps to understand the situation.

I will review with the committee your suggestion to include 2.0 and 
2.1 code list copies in the UBL 2.2 distribution and we will discuss 
the impact on the change to the URIs in the distributed CVA file.

Thank you for your enthusiastic input to the committee.  It is an 
example I hope others will follow.

. . . . . . . . Ken

At 2017-09-28 12:46 +0100, David Goodenough wrote:

> shouldn't the 2.0 and 2.1 gc files be included in the ZIP file for 2.2?
>
> They will always be uniquely identifiable as *-2.0.gc and *.2.1.gc so
>
> there are no namespace considerations.
>
>
>
> David


--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |