Re: [ubl-dev] Re: Online UBL validator?

[David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>]

David,

The only thing I'd add to Jon's comments is - why re-invent the wheel?

OASIS already has the CAM specification in place - you are most welcome to
integrate the concepts and techniques from that work - and there's even the
open source implementaton to help you.

There is certainly a perfect opportunity from the business stance to create a
shareware product that provides cool end-user tools to manipulate rules and UBL
structures and express those in CAM templates as XML...

If you look at the CAM Wizard HTML and Javascript that's in the tutorial
available from the OASIS CAM site - you may get even more ideas of how you
could embed UBL structures into an online Wizard - and then allows you to click
and choose - and build your rules sets.  Just some ideas.

This would make a very nice shareware product that would be easy to implement
IMHO.  Oh - yep - you can write it in Perl too if you want too - no objections
there!

Cheers, DW.
============================================================

Quoting jon.bosak@sun.com:

> [david.lyon@computergrid.net:]
> 
> | We are in the middle of producing a UBL validator/testpad so we
> | haven't made it publicly available yet.
> | 
> | It's written in Perl and does a wide variety of tests on
> | documents. The basic idea is that it would be able to scrutinise a
> | trading partners documents for compliance to the specifications.
> | 
> | Our plan is to release the tool as shareware in the next month or
> | so.
> 
> David,
> 
> This is exactly the kind of tool we need to make UBL practical,
> and I'm glad to see the ubl-dev list beginning to function as a
> place for sharing this sort of information.  As your examples
> show, real-life applications need to do a lot of "business
> validation" beyond the "schema validation" provided by the UBL
> schemas.  It will be interesting to see the various approaches
> that emerge to accomplish this.
> 
> | If anything, UBL needs way more tools from way more people than
> | it has.
> 
> I completely agree.  The more, the better.
> 
> | and I sometimes get the impression that there is a lot of
> | negative encouragement given to anybody outside of the
> | oasis banner, as if to say, leave it to the big boys, we'll
> | take care of it. Whatever....
> 
> Please don't take the comments of any particular OASIS participant
> as reflecting the organization as a whole.  OASIS has one of the
> least hierarchical organizational structures of any major
> standards body, and no chair of an OASIS TC speaks for any other
> TC.  I can assure you as the chair of the UBL TC that we are
> wholeheartedly supportive of efforts such as yours, and I applaud
> the shareware approach you're planning to adopt for distribution
> of your product.
> 
> | UBL and ebxml is struggling... can't see why....
> 
> UBL and ebXML are both continuing to steadily gain traction in the
> face of heavy opposition from certain Very Large American Software
> Companies.  Those of us who were privileged to watch the early
> "grass roots" stages of Web adoption can see some basic
> similarities here.  Just as in the case of the web, homegrown
> products such as yours will play an essential role in deploying
> these user-oriented technologies.  Keep up the good work!
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


http://drrw.net