RE: [ubl-dev] Creating a new document... where to start?

["Scott Wiseman" <scott@intercore.net>]

I noticed you do training.
How successful is the training.
And do you give list members a discount 

-----Original Message-----
From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:38 AM
To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Creating a new document... where to start?

At 2004-06-21 08:10 -0700, Scott Wiseman wrote:
>I think you should publish your restricted schema under your own 
>namespace. This should help.

How would you assess the impact on existing applications or
implementations that rely on instances that use the published namespace?
How would you characterize how doing this would help his situation?

I'm of the opinion anyone setting out their own namespace would be
instantly isolated from an installed base of free and commercial
technologies where programs are keyed to manipulating information in the
UBL namespace.  Unnecessary transliteration would be needed to do any
useful work.

I see the UBL namespaces and base schemas as sacrosanct and that any
parallel or restricted applications will, by economic and technical
necessity, not be in a position to introduce additions.

Yes, there will be communities who build on UBL with their own
extensions, but that is because as a community they will have the
support of users and vendors to take advantage of those extensions.

But the biggest community of users will be small business users who will
be disenfranchised from UBL by any anything other than an absolutely
strict subset expression of constraints to meet simple business
requirements while simultaneously satisfying the complex business
requirements for which UBL was designed.

Stephen Green's efforts to pull together a Small Business Profile for
UBL are noteworthy and noble, and we should all rally behind him to help
him assess what the balance is to meet small business requirements
sufficiently with as useful and compact a subset of UBL as possible.

Should the original poster use their own namespace, they would not be
able to run their instances against freely-available stylesheets or
upcoming commercial and free implementations of UBL-based systems,
unless they went through a "translation step" to the standard UBL
subset.  Why not just stick within the subset by using the UBL namespace
provided that nothing expressed in the subset is going to violate the
constraints of the original?

................... Ken


--
Public training 3 days XSLT & 2 days XSL-FO: Phoenix,AZ 2004-08-23
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Breast Cancer Awareness  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
http://www.computer-los-angeles.com
http://www.avidware.net
http://www.intercore.net
http://cisco-equipment.com