[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: [ubl-dev] Re: Global elements doing UBL a disservice
Hi, It may help to compare with a sister language. XBRL is the language selected by the tax authorities under the auspices of OASIS, amongst other adoptions. XBRL is strictly W3C compliant. After seven years of development, XBRL has ended with all elements being declared at a global level in order to separate the content model from the element declarations. The content model gets built by selecting resources from linkbase, using Xpath 2 and XLink. Due to the flexibility of this architecture, there is no doubt in my mind that the UBL 2 requirements elements can be expressed in XBRL using W3C standards. Any move to RELAX-NG needs to be justified on grounds other than standards. However, I also understand Ken's position. The XBRL Consortium has found that XML this leading edge can not yet be done by generic XML tools. In particular, the W3C Xpath group could easily be more active in including more standard elements, rather than leaving the standards to be set by individual user groups. At this time adopters would have to acquire XBRL tools, or build very similar tools specifically for UBL 2. In time, tools will become more standards compliant. They are being pushed by standards such as XBRL, CAM and maybe UBL based upon this thread. We will find W3C standards easier and easier to apply. Regards David SCOTT STOKES IT Specialist Chartered Accountant FCA PMP MACS david.scott.stokes@inman.com.au www.inman.com +61 417 531107 in Australia and global roaming -----Original Message----- From: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@softml.net] Sent: Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:08 AM To: UBL-Dev Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] Re: Global elements doing UBL a disservice Agree with you, David. I'm saying the same, that XSD can even handle very well those (SQL) schemas, which also handled very well the storage needs for EDI in the EDIFACT days (prevailing now still...). Yet, now there's a likely proposal from Ken that XSD cannot handle UBL's infoset, and thus a need for RELAX-NG. This is what I thought is both puzzling, and somewhat worrying. On re-reading what I wrote for that paragraph, I think I might not have ubl:qualified my pronouns properly. It probably should read, "Why did, and when have, the structures of the EDI datasets become suddenly so complicated that XSD, which can even describe SQL database schemas, cannot now describe those EDI datasets?" Thanks. Just an aside (and please don't take it too seriously; it's only half in jest), it's somewhat pleasant to read your mail for once with a failure to search for the word "CAM" :) Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6820-2979 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/ On Tue, 30 May 2006, David RR Webber (XML) wrote: >>Chin, >> >>I'd say it was the other way around - SQL tables and columns are a very >>simple constrained static information model - hence XSD can handle >>those quiet well. >> >>I believe we are seeing a world emerge where people are wanting to move >>beyond those restrictions imposed by SQL. >> >>Remember too that Codd originally wanted to have extended usage >>semantics on columns within tables - but had to remove those features >>so that the computers of that era could perform OK. Notice that this >>simple "DBase2" style data modelling has served very well. However - >>clearly companies can gain competitive advantage by adopting XML based >>information handling - as we see with examples such as the Oxford >>Press, through to Amazon, eBay, Dell and HP to mention just some. >> >>DW >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >>Sure, I suppose the whole 3-4 year of UBL activities were to "upgrade" >>the world's EDI from EDIFACT to an XML-based version that offers >><xsd:import source="advantages.xml"> advantages, it is to describe >>using XML the abstract value space formerly described by EDIFACT using >>ASCII strings. Why did, and when have, the structures of the datasets >>become suddenly so complicated that XSD that can describe SQL database >>schemas cannot now describe them? I don't really know, and I don't >>suspect that change had happened. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]