RE: SV: [ubl-dev] Order items - substitution items - optimization

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Bryan,   

Thanks for the clarification.  

I should have gone the next step and given some examples ; -)   

What I'm thinking is this mechanism:    

<ParticipantParty role="buyer/seller/etc" name="Fred">   

and then of course depending on the context you can have things like:   


 <ParticipantParty role="buyer" name="John">  
 <ParticipantParty role="seller" name="Anna">   

but as we see in the order case this can get more complex : 

 <ParticipantParty role="customer" name="Jim">   
 <ParticipantParty role="buyer" name="John">  
 <ParticipantParty role="seller" name="Anna">   

and then even:    

 <ParticipantParty role="customer" name="Bryan">
 <ParticipantParty role="customer" name="Jim">
 <ParticipantParty role="buyer" name="John">
 <ParticipantParty role="seller" name="Anna">   

I've also seen where this can occur - when a seller has to act as a
proxy for the buyer.    

 <ParticipantParty role="proxybuyer" name="Anna">
 <ParticipantParty role="seller" name="Anna">   

What this is telling us is that - I believe - there are dynamic
relations - and that in each case you want the exact same block of
information about that party; address, tax codes, contact, etc - and
that is the KEY here - that the information model is the same - just
the role and context changes.   

Plus I'd REALLY like to be able to reference out to partnerID - and not
even have to include the data if the participants already know each
others ParticipantParty information...   

I guess this is all about optimizations - that obviously when you are
designing the information model in UML you are not so concerned with -
but make a big difference to the end-user experience in actual practice
in the field.   However - as we move more to context driven and process
driven information design - I believe we'll see that these are apparent
- because intuitively humans do this stuff - so its a case of figuring
out how UML/UMM accommodates that smoothly...   

DW 

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Order items - substitution items - optimization
From: "Bryan  Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>
Date: Fri, January 19, 2007 6:00 am
To: "Chin Chee-Kai" <cheekai@SoftML.Net>, "David RR Webber (XML)"
<david@drrw.info>, <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>

I have to go with Chee-Kai (excuse me if I'm mixing surname and
forename),
Buyers and Sellers are derived from the class Party if I understand the
thinking correctly (I have tried to keep out of the modelling/semantics
discussions because I didn't agree with much from an XML aesthetics
discussion and didn't see any reason to fight against what seems
foregone,
the downside is that I don't know much of the arguments as to why things
are
as they are).

It seems David is arguing that rather they are both Party instances that
have
a role of either Buyer or Seller. This doesn't seem right because there
is a
major difference between them in a business context, although not
modelled in
UBL 2.0 internally in the structure of a Buyer or Seller, and that
difference
is in which direction the money is moving. Given such a major
difference,
even if it is implicit, it somehow feels right to identify them by
naming the
structure rather than by giving a generic structure a role. (but note,
this
is just a feeling on my part)

At any rate, because of the difference in which direction the money is
moving, what optimization is possible? Surely you will still have to
process
them seperately.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen



-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@SoftML.Net]
Sendt: 18. januar 2007 05:21
Til: David RR Webber (XML); ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Emne: Re: [ubl-dev] Order items - substitution items - optimization


At 01:14 PM 2007-01-17 -0700, David RR Webber \(XML\) wrote:
>Folks - just reviewing this - seems like Buyer and Seller substitution
>items are identical structurally (but HUGE!) - therefore it would make
>more sense to just have one of them in the schema structure -
>repeatable - and then a mandatory LineType of either "Buyer" /
>"Seller".

I'm afraid this would discard the whole point of cementing the semantics
of "Buyer" with the Buyer tag and the semantics of "Seller" with the
Seller
tag which UBL 1.0 & 2.0 so readily provide now.

Informatically, you cannot throw away, or rather optimise (to put it
more nicely), the bit information of "Buyer/Seller".  This means that
if you have a GenericBuyerOrSeller tag, you're going to need a flag of
some sort as a child of that to distinguish them apart.  The decision
to use either
<GenereicBuyerOrSeller>
  <Flag>I-am-a-Buyer</Flag>
  ...
</GenereicBuyerOrSeller>
<GenereicBuyerOrSeller>
  <Flag>I-am-a-Seller</Flag>
  ...
</GenereicBuyerOrSeller>

OR

<Buyer>...</Buyer>
<Seller>...</Seller>

is thrashed out within UBL, and I suppose the common wisdom coming out
of UBL 1.0 & 2.0 is the latter form.




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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org