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

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

Mikkel,

The solution is what you hint at - an interoperability hub - that on one
side speaks UBL - and the otherside speaks a dialect that allows the
little guys to at least get their data to them.

 ; -)

The key is knowing that the little guys XML is 100% compatible with the
bigendian UBL.  BTW - my experience is that namespaces are ugly when it
comes to little guys handling them - they tend to break things...!

Plain-old-xml was where we started ten years ago - I guess this is back
to basics.

DW

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

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is 
needed
From: "Mikkel Hippe Brun" <MHB@itst.dk>
Date: Fri, February 09, 2007 5:09 pm
To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>,
<ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>

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