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] Comments on UBL-NDR 2 Versioning


At 10:24 PM 2006-11-12 +0100, Marc de Graauw wrote:
>The term 'compatibility' is not defined. It's very likely the spec uses it
>in the sense of backward compatibility, where every UBL version n document
>is a valid instance of an UBL version n+1 language definition, but since
>this is a thorny issue, I suggest the meaning of 'compatibility' should be
>defined.

A very point-blank note indeed.  When I attended the recent UBL TC meeting
in Singapore, there appeared to be general reluctance (myself included) to
tackle head on with this topic, together with other heavy-weight words like
"compliance", "interoperable", "customization".  And the worse is certainly
to try to talk about them all at once;  it looked more difficult than
learning to juggle 4 balls in mid-air.   So it was understandable that
some further accumulation of thoughts via passage of time is needed.

I do see your attempt at "compatibility" as a very good start to all these.


>702: "For UBL Minor version changes the namespace name MUST not change."

Actually, I'd rather version values be reflected within a standard header
block within every UBL instance.  Only then could it facilitate applications
in developing logic and codes to support backward-compatibility via data
trigger through the version values stored in the instances.

So a consequence of that would be to suggest that major and minor versions
be all eradicated from namespace encoding...


>I'd kindly suggest an item for the NDR 3: separate the NDR from UBL-sec,
>stating which rules are UBL-specific, and which ones are not, thus allowing
>non-UBL vocabularies to claim conformance to the NDR. Their importance
>transcends the reach of the UBL domains. In general, a conformance paragraph
>would be welcome too, perhaps allowing conformance claims which allows to
>state exceptions for local contexts.

You've just poked another tough spot on "conformance"...




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


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