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: SV: [ubl-dev] UBL Basics.. try "Productivity"....


OK, now were really starting to get somewhere:

Ken wrote
> But what was posted didn't claim that it was "pretty much equivalent 
> to UBL in a CCTS sense". 

But that then is what we need some shorthand for. I just find
myself strongly disagreeing that 'Customization' is a reserved
word we can't use for this. I think CCTS trumps UBL here in it's
right to that word since in UBL customization should first be in
the CCTS sense as that is UBL's primary purpose.

Steve

>>> "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> 12/02/07 13:39:50 >>>
At 2007-02-12 10:02 +0000, Stephen Green wrote:
>I Do think being a standard based on and
>seeking to be compliant with CCTS (ISO 15000-5, I believe)
>is the real issue here. That claim makes certain promises
>to users and, sincerely without wishing to be devisive, I do
>hope that all of UBL's TC will try to appreciate that.

I do appreciate that at the model level.  I've been talking about 
syntax because that is what started this thread.

>The main
>factor here is that there should be a way to make an EDI
>(or alternative NDR implemenation in XML) of those BIEs
>and still have it get as much respect as UBL. Whether it is
>then called UBL or ISO 15000-5 with UBL BIEs (or even perhaps
>just ISO 15000-5 with the same context that UBL's submission
>of BIEs and CCs to TBG results in) is not the main thing but is
>still important.

Indeed it is important, or there will be confusion in the marketplace 
about what things are called and what people are told.

>Personally I'd like to see 'UBL' mean shorthand for CEFACT-
>harmonized CCs and BIEs with a certain set of context
>drivers. This then would allow me to call what we have made
>for the cataloguing business process and small business
>application ability pretty much equivalent to UBL in a CCTS
>sense as UBL's primary schemas.

But what was posted didn't claim that it was "pretty much equivalent 
to UBL in a CCTS sense".  David asked for an example instance of UBL 
and what was presented to him wasn't an example instance of 
UBL.  Here is his original post:

>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:48:30 +1100
>From: David Lyon <david.lyon@preisshare.net>
>Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] ubl pricelist validation ?
>...
>I looked through those files and couldn't find any files to process 
>or build the ubl catalogue document

He is specifically asking for UBL validation of a price list.  What 
was presented to him could not be validated as a price list using UBL 
tools.  This now being in the archive, I felt compelled to raise the 
issue of instance-level conformance and validation.

At the model level the business objects being based on CCTS or on UBL 
business objects will support the interoperability between different 
concrete expressions of those objects.  I have no problem with 
that.  Throughout this discourse I have tried not to present anything 
in contrast to that.

I know that Tim is working with derived UBL business objects for 
successful projects in Asia ... interoperability is provided for at 
the model level.

I've also tried hard to keep my comments focused at the instance 
level.  When we talk about "conformant UBL instances", my personal 
understanding is this is defined in sections 5 and 6 of the specification:

   http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/os-UBL-2.0/UBL-2.0.html 

The committee is working on terminology and documentation to present 
to the user community what it means to be working with UBL at a model 
level.  This will give us the distinction to help the user community 
decide what they need and which way they will use UBL.

You'll note in the archives that I only chose to speak up when 
already accepted terminology used by the committee was used for 
something other than what was already accepted:

At 2007-02-09 09:11 -0700, you wrote:
>I just got to a fairly stable state with a customization of
>the UBL Catalogue for an opensource price list product. After
>making a schema as previously mentioned with zero namespaces
>(or at most one) and just one schema file I went on to
>customise the Catalogue proper UBL schema files too. Both
>can then be used but I made the single-file schema more like
>the UBL proper schema with closer to identical instances by
>starting the element names with 'cbc.' or 'cac.' as below

Had the attached instance been presented in the archive as something 
compatible with UBL at the model level but not conformant at the 
instance level, then I would have not had anything to add.  What 
happens behind the curtain is irrelevant, and basing an internal 
design on the business objects of UBL independent of any syntax seems 
like sound practice.

My *only* issue is at the syntax level and not the model 
level.  Presenting a string of XML and calling it UBL when it doesn't 
validate with the published UBL tools seems counterproductive.  David 
asked for an example UBL instance of a price list.  I don't believe 
he was asking for a compatible XML serialization of UBL business 
objects (please correct me if I'm wrong, David).  Someone reading the 
archives might be looking for an example UBL instance of a price list 
and believe that was archived was such a specimen.  It isn't.

If working with a compatible XML serialization of UBL business 
objects satisfies users, then I'm all for them using it as it will 
promote object-level interoperability.  If it works behind the 
curtain, then let it work behind the curtain.  I am *not* trying to 
inhibit the wonderful work coming out of your efforts.

But if working with a conformant XML serialization of UBL schemas is 
what users are asking for, then we should ensure they understand what 
they are working with.

I hope this has finally cleared up a distinction I've been trying to 
make.  Again, I would not have taken all this time to bring this up 
if I didn't feel it important that adopted terminology be used 
appropriately and that the original poster received what he thought 
he was asking for.

I truly hope this has been constructive.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com 
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ 
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc 
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal 


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


______________________________________________________________________
Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk 

Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details.

Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say  and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect 



______________________________________________________________________
Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk

Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details.

Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say  and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect 





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