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] Given that they are part of 2.2 (by reason of backward compatibility)

I suspect you will get fed up with me eventually, but until you tell me

to go away I will keep going. Thank you for responses, they are very



I am at the end of a very slow ADSL line, which is usage measured during

the day. So I tend to download things in lumps and review them later.

Hence my use of the ZIP file.


I quite understand that having one reference copy on the net makes a

whole bunch of sense, which is why I am only suggesting some structure

like a 2.0 and 2.1 directory in the ZIP file rather than duplication

of the primary source. I realize that this represents additional packaging

work, and that resources to achieve this packaging may be limited. On

the net the same could be achieved by links to the old GC files, rather

than copies. It is just easier for the new user if everything is visible

in one place. It took me a while to realize that there were more than

the few new/modified GC files for 2.2, and that the old ones were still





On Thursday, 28 September 2017 10:41:28 BST G. Ken Holman wrote:

> 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) |



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