[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-comment] Invitation to comment on Universal Business Language v2.3 from the UBL TC - ends February 15th
Hi David Thanks for your input. Let me try to clarify: 1) Previous UBL versions only allowed extensions at the document level, which is different from allowing extensions to
ABIE elements. Consider for example an invoice with several invoice lines. Previous UBL versions would only allow you to extend the invoice document itself, but not the invoice line ASBIE itself. The following is now possible with UBL 2.3: Invoice document - Invoice line 1 - - [Extension with information related to invoice line 1] - Invoice line 2 - - [Extension with information related to invoice line 2] There are no changes to this between the first public review and the current public review, except for the clarification in the specification (sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2). The XML schemas themselves remain unchanged. Personally I share your concern about possible âmisuseâ of extensions, and I do think it important to emphasize that the extensions are intended for adding information that cannot be expressed using existing UBL vocabulary (i.e. information
and elements that were not contemplated within UBL itself). Extensions are not intended for creating alternative ways of conveying information that already has its place in UBL. Weâve tried to clarify this with section 4.7. 2) I believe there is a difference between being âreliantâ on non-UBL documents and being able to make reference to non-UBL documents. Business documents frequently make reference to other documents, and some of those documents are defined
elsewhere and fall outside the scope of UBL (contracts and agreements, legal documents, technical drawings, project plans, photographic images, just to name a few). UBL provides mechanisms for making references to such documents, and your vision that agreements
should be expressed in a structured and standardized format is excellent. It is certainly what we are working for as well. Specifically for agreements about data model and content requirements (including extensions), UBL has the Profile ID and Customization
ID, and 2.2 introduced the Digital Agreement document type. Your suggestions for how these can be improved, as well as for any additional information items and document types we can add will be more than welcome! Best regards, Kenneth From: David Goodenough <david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk> Looking at this list I am royally confused.
1) The original 2.3 proposal that I reacted to was to add extensions to ALL compound UBL objects, but 3.5.2 has been changed to say only ABIE objects (i.e. root objects) can have
extensions, which is what previous versions had. The discussion says that effectively my objection was rejected, but the text says that UBL has reverted to pre-2.3 behaviour. While I don't like extensions at any level, the pre-2.3 extensions are already there
and given the wish to remain backward compatible it would be difficult to remove them.
2) The point of my second object was that the agreement process for allowing extensions should have a digital representation that was part of the exchanged datastreams. Having it
in separate unstructured documents, phone calls, post it notes or whatever really misses the point. UBL should be self contained, and not reliant on non-UBL documents!
David
On Monday, 3 February 2020 19:02:00 GMT Paul Knight wrote:
Hi David,
I'm not at all involved in the technical work of UBL, so this may not be the specific item you are asking about, but I see that two issues you had raised are addressed as the first two entries in the "comment resolution log" prepared by the UBL TC after the
first public review. It appears that some changes were made based on your comments.
If you have not already seen that, it may be helpful.
By the way, thanks very much for your interest and comments.
This is cited from the announcement, at [2]:
[2] Previous public reviews:
Best regards,
Paul
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:14 PM David Goodenough <david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk> wrote:
By the look of it the objection to universal extensions has been accepted, which if it is true is good news.
As a comment on the process that lead to that acceptance, it is strange that a formally raised (at least I think I raised it formally) matter such as this has never actually been responded to. No documentation seems to exist (at least that I have come across)
about the discussion that happened as a result of my observations. It is quite possible I am simply not looking in the right place - if so please can someone tell me where to look.
David
On Monday, 3 February 2020 16:10:31 GMT Paul Knight wrote:
Hi David and all,
While not a "list of changes", there is an accompanying "diff" file noted in the announcement, at footnote [3]. In case you missed that in the original announcement, I hope it is helpful.
[3] Red-lined version:
Best regards,
Paul
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Goodenough <david.goodenough@broadwellmanor.co.uk> wrote:
Is there a list of changes since the first public review? A quick look did not reveal one, but I may have missed it.
David
On Friday, 31 January 2020 17:58:58 GMT Paul Knight wrote:
OASIS Members and other interested parties,
Paul Knight....Document
Process Analyst...mobile: +1 781-883-1783
OASIS - Advancing open standards for the information society
Paul Knight....Document
Process Analyst...mobile: +1 781-883-1783
OASIS - Advancing open standards for the information society
Paul Knight....Document
Process Analyst...mobile: +1 781-883-1783
OASIS - Advancing open standards for the information society
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]