[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types
Agreed - changes to SBS should only happen through the UBL TC, for future versions. Good that you submitted comments to the W3C Schema comment list as well. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:43 AM To: Chiusano Joseph; ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types Hi Joe Yes it's just that you gave the impression that someone might * wish * to restrict datatypes themselves with the SBS and, to my mind at least, implementers are the ones who would want to do that, which therefore implies, to me, that implementers would want to be changing the actual SBS - which shouldn't happen (except through the proper channels in future versions in the UBL TC). By the way I dropped a line to XML Schema comment list about those earlier matters (not officially on anyone's bahalf of course) so we'll see... All the best Steve >>> "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> 05/05/06 16:36:25 >>> <Quote> Not quite sure why you give the impression the SBS can be changed by implementers. I may have given that impression myself but it isn't so. </Quote> Hi Steve, Can you please help me understand where I gave such an impression? I want to make sure I did not give the impression of the wrong impression:). I do understand completely that the SBS can't be changed by implementers. Below I was mostly speaking very generally, outside of SBS. I did make reference to SBS to convey that SBS does not include the capability of constraining data types (the reason that I started this thread), and expanded on that to say that this (lack of ability to contrain data types) can potentially negatively impact small businesses. I also realize that this may be considered pure, unsupported speculation. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:29 AM To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types Hi Joe Not quite sure why you give the impression the SBS can be changed by implementers. I may have given that impression myself but it isn't so. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of the fact that one can use the methodology of the SBS to create other subsets (and I take your point that it isn't as suitable for private subsets as I hope it is for more public ones). Or there is a caveat (which I've not mentioned before in this thread) that one can use the actual SBS as a reference point to create quick and ready subsets which aren't much different (say "we'll use in this trading agreement or tool UBL 1.0 SBS plus allowances/charges at line level in the invoice" or make it more formal by using the definitions with extra elements inserted and making it clear to all concerned just what has been added or even removed). More appropriate perhaps to your situation, one can do the above and also use a second specification document of some kind to show datatype restrictions where appropriate. Of course, with the next public review, folk could add comments which might result in changes to the SBS (or any other subset owned by the UBL TC in the future). That's another matter though. All the best Steve >>> "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> 05/05/06 15:51:17 >>> <Quote> If an implementation chooses to constrain a user's use of a vocabulary, that is up to the implementation, not to the abstract definitions expressed in the vocabulary. </Quote> Well I think it depends on what we mean when we say "implementation" (as it's a broad term). I agree 100% (and have always agreed 100%) that the UBL schemas should not constrain data types, as this would limit interoperability (what if someone needed a string length of 20 instead of 10?). They are best kept uncontrained. However, if by "implementation" we mean applications (i.e. using application logic to check for data type contraints), then in some cases this may be the best approach, and in others it may not be (it's a case-by-case basis). However, for data-oriented (vs. document-oriented) XML, I do believe that there will be many cases in which it is advantageous to check such constraints "on-the-wire" using - for example - an XML schema, but having the constraints "baked in" to the schema itself. In other cases, on-the-wire validation may not be the best approach (for example, for throughput considerations), and validation in application logic may be best. Having said that, since the UBL schemas cannot constrain data types (and I don't believe that they should), if there were a mechanism within a tool/methodology to enable users to constrain data types and validate them on-the-wire, I believe it would be very valuable. FWIW, I'm not seeing the connection (though I understand *what* we are trying to connect) between small businesses and lack of data type constraints (I say this because the SBS is for small businesses, and it doesn't have the ability to constrain data types). I know that application logic can check for such things, but I don't see why it wouldn't be advantageous for the applications that support small business to be able to validate data type constraints on-the-wire (in addition to things such as element names, etc.) through XML schema-based mechanisms, such as those that SBS currently offers (meaning in addition to those capabilities). If ability to check for things such as cardinality on-the-wire is there, why not string length? Or number of decimal places? Of all types of businesses, I would think it would be best for small businesses to ensure that their data is conformant to requirements as early as possible during an exchange (meaning before it "hits" the embedded application logic), and in as efficient a manner as possible. Relying on application logic to catch such errors when there are facilities already available within existing standards (with the caveat that I fully realize the challenges associated with XML schema) could - I believe - potentially lead to a greater chance of incorrect data "slipping in" to a small business. Consider, for example, what would happen if a incoming monetary amount did not have the proper number of decimals, and the application logic was not able to catch this? Of all types of businesses, I would think that a small business would be most impacted by such a scenario. Also, having such capabilities outside of the application logic could - I would think - potentially lower implementation costs for vendors, as they can take advantage of existing standards rather than "rolling their own" logic. These are just my views - I respect all opinions on this, and none of them can be wrong (even though I welcome anyone telling me that mine is wrong:). Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: G. Ken Holman [mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 12:03 PM To: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] SBS and Restricted Data Types At 2006-05-04 11:31 -0400, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >The same would apply for data type restrictions - if there were some >overriding, unavoidable reason that a trading partner could not honor a >length for a description of (say) 30 characters, and they instead sent >you 100, then there needs to be requirements for handling this >situation (e.g. is it ok to truncate the characters beyond the 30th?). Then put that in a business rule (i.e. asserted using Schematron), don't change the constraints of the expression of the information in the document vocabulary. >What has happened to the notion of contract-based interoperabilty, >where trading partners adhered to a technical contract to the greatest >degree feasible and possible? Why leave data type restrictions (such as >string >length) out in the cold? I really don't understand what the issue is >here (please note that that is not a criticism of your perspective). > >So with all due respect, and for what it may be worth, I completely >differ with your views on interoperability as expressed below. That is >not to say in any way that they are incorrect - I just have a very >different perspective on interoperability, and the possibilities that >can be realized. > >Please correct my thinking if needed - I want to be told I am wrong if >you or anyone else believes I am. Who is to say what is "correct" Joe when dealing with perspectives? For my two cents (Canadian), implementation constraints such as string length have no role in XML vocabularies. XML vocabularies are used to express user's information so that users can convey what they need to do their business. If an implementation chooses to constrain a user's use of a vocabulary, that is up to the implementation, not to the abstract definitions expressed in the vocabulary. Implementations of standards differentiate themselves by how well they work with the standards and which features they offer to their users. If in my business I absolutely need to use 100 characters for my description, then I'm going to go out there looking for an implementation that supports me. If I can't find one, then I'll have other decisions to make, but I would have had that if the "standard" arbitrarily restricted me. But I don't have to make those decisions if there are applications that support me. I don't think implementations should arbitrarily constrain users of XML vocabularies ... that is the tail wagging the dog. If I enter into a trading agreement with a trading partner and we mutually agree that our use of UBL will require that a given string be constrained to 30 characters, that is a business/technical decision between me and my partner, it is not a constraint on the document vocabulary, and I'll express that constraint as an assertion that can be tested after structural integrity has been tested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- Registration open for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Wash.,DC 2006-06-12/16 Also for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04 Also for XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training:Birmingham,England 2006-05-22/25 Also for XSLT/XSL-FO training: Copenhagen,Denmark 2006-05-08/11 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 Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legalRest --------------------------------------------------------------------- This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing the UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/ Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing the UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/ Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- This publicly archived list supports open discussion on implementing the UBL OASIS Standard. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Alternately, using email: list-[un]subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org List archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-dev/ Committee homepage: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]