[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
Stephen, That is exactly what CAM let's you do. Have multiple -structure layouts for the same business logical document. This is now accident - this was a requirement from the orignal BPSS team under Brian Hayes to the then CAM team. Anyway - basically CAM does this - giving flexiblity over validation rules dependent on the context and the structure instance you want to use. Cheers, DW ======================================= Stephen Green wrote: >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]