RE: RE: [ubl-dev] Datatype Methodology RE: [ubl-dev] SBSandRestricted Data Types

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Stephen,

There's a way of doing all these just like you suggested.  Glad you've
suggested.  I refer to the 2-Phase model mentioned earlier (repeated
at end-of-mail for reference).  Idea here is to do up a new APP-SCHEMA
as follows:

- Start with UBL's spreadsheet model, choosing that which matches
  closest with the project on hand.  (Eg. for invoice, use UBL's Invoice)

- Edit to customise the spreadsheet.  Eg changing the cardinalities, 
  deleting rows (elements, ABIEs) or even adding rows (elements, ABIEs).

- Use UBLish (v1.0.10) to rebuild the schemas automatically.
  Before rebuilding, set the Configuration to empty targetNamespace
  so the output schemas will be namespaceless.



For reference, the 2-Phase processing model being:
    Phase 1::   Process & validate incoming data instance
                against standard schema NORM-SCHEMA
                (normative, uncustomised)

    Phase 2::   (a) Process & validate incoming data instance
                    against application-oriented schema APP-SCHEMA
                    (customised, localised schema with either
                    same namespace as UBL [but not published and
                    only used in-transit within the app] or just
                    namespace-less),

                (b) Use software module to inspect and perform
                    active error checks (active means triggering
                    suitable actions/responses on error)

                (c) a combination of (a), (b) and other techniques
                    available and local to the end-user.


The output schema(s) will then be the local APP-SCHEMA(S) for use
in Phase-2 of schema validation (if only deleting of rows were
done).

If addition of rows were done earlier in the spreadsheet,
the project would necessarily be so local as to collapse Phase-1/2
into something else that won't interoperate widely with UBL instances
anyway.  But if that's the situation needed by user, then at least
there exists a way to do it.

This may not be the sort of customisation (extension/restriction/
redefine/substitution) discussion familiar to UBLers, but from
end-user and problem-solving perspective, it is not necessary
to limit the imagination of customisation to only the schema-based 
angle.

Thanks.


Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6820-2979
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Fri, 12 May 2006 stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:

>>
>>...
>>
>>How about just redeclaring everything in a new schema, almost
>>exactly the same as the original but with the restrictions -
>>with or without the same namespaces?
>>
>>Many thanks
>>
>>Steve
>>