OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-dev message

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


Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Specifying use of a profile with CPP


Thanks David

Other requirements compel me to use XSD though.

I think I'll have to put together various artifacts in

<tp:NamespaceSupported tp:location="****" tp:version="****">****</tp:NamespaceSupported>

and

<tp:ProcessSpecification tp:version="****" tp:name="****" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="****" tp:uuid="*******"/>

so I'll have to use space separated lists - less machine processable but then I don't yet expect machine processing
to be involved. This rather means the CPPA and BPSS standards, in my situation (similar to SME) are mainly useful
as templates for specification production, requiring primarily styling to convert these to something human-readable.

I wonder if, in the future, the CPPA and BPSS Schemas might be adapted to support multiple spec documents for
each business message, in a group such that each reference to a document could have its own documentary
metadata. Making it possible for a machine to understand that there is a subset or profile applied to a particular Schema
or the like would be ideal.

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> David RR Webber <david@drrw.info> 09/09/04 14:20:40 >>>
Stephen,

I'm deep in this trench at the moment.  I'm using OASIS jCAM for the 
validation - which avoids
issues with schema, XML and validation.

Basically the idea is that you can associate a CAM template with a 
document definition (send or receipt) in your CPP isntead of the XSD.

Then you can sue your ebMS engine, post-CPA checks, (Hermes can be 
tweaked in this way) - to run the jCAM processor prior to
invoking the data-agent servlet to scoop up the payload.

Also - Dale has posted a similar related Q to the BPSS list this week - 
vis linkage between BPSS and CPP - however - there is no
dependency here - you can independently use CPA - it will therefore have 
an implied psuedo BPSS.

See my paper here on deployment models for ebXML to understand more:

  http://ebxmlbook.com/Benefits of ebXML.pdf

Hope this helps.

DW
=============================

Stephen Green wrote:

>Greetings
>
>I've some questions about ebXML CPP in relation to UBL as an ebXML payload.
>
>
>1. For someone using UBL Lite as a profile, is it possible to specify use of a profile in CPP?
>Using the CPP Schema, tp:NamespaceSupported element I can specify:
>
><tp:NamespaceSupported tp:location="UBL-Order-1.0.xsd" tp:version="ubl-lite-0.2">urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Order-1.0</tp:NamespaceSupported>
>
>but I imagine it might not be proper to use the tp:version attribute in this way
>
>Also, in the above example it seems the emphasis is on the location of the Schema rather than the namespace;
>the example CPP document given actually uses the Schema location in the text of the element too. I took the
>liberty of using the namespace of the UBL document in the element text content but is this correct?
>UBL doesn't yet have a permanent  loaction so I'm perturbed at the emphasis on location in what should be
>by definition a specification of support of a namespace rather than a physical Schema file.
>
>
>
>2. Does one have to wait for an official BPSS definition of UBL processes to be defined in order to use UBL with CPP?
>
>How can I get appropriate values for:
>
><tp:ProcessSpecification tp:version="**" tp:name="*******" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="*****" tp:uuid="******"/>
>
>in order to specify use of UBL in my CPP document?
>
>
>
>3. Pushing this further, what would be required in order to specify use of a defined subset/profile of UBL such as UBL Lite?
>I would imagine something like
><tp:ProcessSpecification tp:version="2.0" tp:name="ubl-lite-0.2" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/200409/msg00002.html"; tp:uuid="*******"/>
>but this would be a desparate measure and it still doesn't give me a tp:uuid. 
>
>
>
>4. ** Does this all mean we can't use CPP without there having been substancial BPSS and registration work already done at a standards level? **
>
>
>
>
>I'd appreciate any help or comments
>
>Stephen Green
>
>
>
>
>  
>




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