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

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

At 2004-06-23 08:58 +0100, Stephen Green wrote:
>Maybe I'll reply to my own message here -

Always helps to get more ideas on the table!

>I think it might be sufficient for this matter for small businesses if 
>certain documents
>(particularly the order if just a simple order/invoice process is the
>case in point) have, besides things like 'AcknowledgementResponseCode'
>(which just applies in 1.0 to the type of OrderResponse to follow an order),
>some other code like 'ReturnedInvoiceCode' with values like 
>'SmallBusinessProfile',
>'ContextSpecificProfile' (which would require something like the ebXML CPA
>to specifiy what that context is and the respective profile - but small 
>businesses
>applications might not be able to cope with ebXML/CPA) and another code
>for a fullblown vanilla response being acceptable (can't think of a 
>suitable value)

Well, now I think you are going beyond the kind of semantic documented for 
AcknowledgementResponseCode and that takes me back to my earlier idea of 
using a processing instruction ...

   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200406/msg00037.html

... to say "hey, by the way, this happens to validate against the small 
business profile in case you were wondering which profile you need to use 
to work with this file, if that is important to you".

>A more general code or identifier or a more specific indicator (like 
>SmallBusinessIndicator)
>are alternatives to consider.

Yes, as part of the protocol, not as part of the data.

>Incidentally, it is as well to point out that there may be scope for 
>things like this to
>be included in 1.1 or later if they are more general than can be catered 
>for in
>a specific customization.

But only model it in the document if you are describing properties *of* the 
document, not properties of the applications that are processing the documents.

>A 'selling' point of UBL is that it doesn't require the
>use of ebXML/ISO15000 and I'd hope that UBL can be used (with this matter 
>sorted)
>in simple e-mailing applications as are available now in certain small 
>business finance
>products.

Sounds like a few judiciously-chosen PIs might help.

As an analogue, think about XML Stylesheet association:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-stylesheet/

When someone adds a PI to an XML document as follows ...

   <?xml-stylesheet href="mysheet.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
   <doc>
     <text>hello</text>
   </doc>

... what they are saying is "I think you should use that stylesheet for 
this document", but it isn't at all obliging the recipient to do so.  The 
recipient's application can choose to ignore it (as does the XT processor), 
switch it on or off (as does the Saxon processor), automatically detect it 
(as does the Xalan processor), or categorically follow it without question 
(as does Internet Explorer).

But suggesting a stylesheet for an XML document is *not* asserting a 
property *of* the document, so it isn't an information item modeled in the 
hierarchy, it is a supplemental information item orthogonal to the model 
and just thrown in to be detected.

I can make a choice of my application based on its ability to handle the 
processing instructions and engage the application to respect or ignore 
such a processing instruction.  And the data doesn't change and still means 
the same thing.

But that is just an opinion and I'd like to hear if this resonates with anyone.

....................... 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