SV: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is needed

["Mikkel Hippe Brun" <MHB@itst.dk>]

At 2007-02-09 09:28 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote:
>Perhaps, Ken, it would be different when it is all just different
>BBIEs for a common set of core components. This then would
>be a context specific implementation of the same BIEs and CCs.
>CCTS's harmonization and conformance emphasis is on the
>model rather than the implementation in XML.

Ken Wrote
>Fine, but that *isn't* UBL.
 
I have to agree with Ken on this. Interoperability at the instance level is
key. Please use such a format as an internal format and convert it to a valid
UBL instance before exchanging it with other applications. Being able to
exchange and validate UBL instances around the world it what makes UBL a
succes. For that we need the UBL data model to be expressed by normative
schemas. We may choose to alter our NDR at a later time, but UBL 2.0
normative schemas have been produced with an NDR which the TC agreed on. I
say this from practical experience with millions of documents exchanged -
preserving namespaces is very important.
 
Best regards Mikkel