[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: SV: [ubl-dev] Hybrid approach to local vs. global
Steve, This has ALWAYS been the position of the CCTS vision - that XML is just merely an on-the-wire representation format. The fact that XML supports the same heirarchy mechanisms as the CCTS UML data models aids its use - but does not mandate any structures, etc. The structures come about merely because humans want to formalize on set standards to aid implementation - and at a minimum they need to support the logical parent/child relations that naturally occur. Technically though - when we get to CAM V3 or V4 - then really it should be able to recognise data content items regardless of their structural layout - but that's even more radical - no structure template at all - just a <DataReference> section and intelligence to sort out what it is that you are receiving on the wire. And then transformation at point of use - to match your existing import/export data models. That of course is how a human-directed FAX interfacing works!... ; -) DW "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: SV: [ubl-dev] Hybrid approach to local vs. global From: "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@bristol.gov.uk> Date: Fri, March 02, 2007 9:25 am To: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> Getting more serious-minded now; I'm persuading myself strongly that even JSON, say, should be compliant as an implementation if it adheres to the model/CCs and BIEs. Who knows what else is around the corner. So I'm convinced now in my mind that with a truly mature ATG2 / CEFACT standard (what should we call it, by the way?) there should be no normative schemas / NDRs and these should be added as mere non-normative (or perhaps separately normative) implementation guides. CAM, RelaxNG, JSON, binary XML - all should be possible ways to implement the main standard, with the flexibility of adding BIEs and CCs too. Separate implementation guides for each technology could be normative in themselves but none more so than another, with the option to keep on adding more and just hints at technologies to map between them or to specify mappings. Not that I'm thinking UBL should have been like this. I think the need was truly there to have one or two sets of schemas and instance formats only. But now is time to start realising the CCTS vision and potential. Folk can revert in future to UBL 2.x if they want that and/or the whole thing with ATG2 falls flat. Look at it like an analogy with photography - there was first black-and-white, now there's colour but you can keep using black and white if you like. Colour was expensive at first but now I wouldn't think it was really more expensive than black-and-white in a way that determined which you'd # use. Same with TV, etc. UBL was/is black-and-white. ATG2's new thing should be colour. All the best Stephen Green >>> "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@bristol.gov.uk> 02/03/07 14:07:00 >>> I bet David RRW will tell us CAM can do all this already. Anyway, I bet the CAM approach has a lot of promise in this area because it doesn't even care if one side of the mapping is XSD and the other RelaxNG, or whether there is any schema at all. It concentrates, it seems, on the instance rather than the schema. I believe there is a lesson in that (even if it isn't ideal from the SGML point of view). A lesson for ATG2 - maybe concentrate on the instances and the models rather than the schemas. So full and partial instances plus a list of constraints in prose and the models (in some format) might be ideal, with non-normative schema (and NDR) * examples * (like implementation guides) and make just the CCTS models of CCs and BIEs normative. Extreme view? Maybe the times are changing :-) From the sounds of it folk might prefer to write schemas for themselves in Schematron or CAM anyway for actual validation use - software in other words - implementation / implementation guide stuff. Perhaps that should be encouraged more by ATG2. All the best Steve >>> "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@bristol.gov.uk> 02/03/07 13:58:36 >>> Hi Ken Surely this would have very limited use - only seems to work when both sides of the mapping use the same NDR. Wouldn't it be more efficient to make it possible to map between two NDRs. There the scope is improved if both sides of the mapping conform to CCTS and use the same Core Components. As CCTS/Core Components is an ISO standard now, wouldn't it be better to make that the bedrock for the Document Schema Renaming Language (DSRL) and then the XSLT would presumably have greater usefulness, though admitedly it might be to complex to do with XSLT when you don't know the two schema designs. Maybe if ATG2 decide to go for the hybrid approach with an XSLT transformation (see my prototype back in the UBL archives somewhere) then the XSLT could form part of either DSRL or its successor if the scope is increased to include mappings between NDRs (schema designs) and perhaps with underlying Core Component interoperability. Looks then like all singing from same (ISO) singsheet. Plus, in there somewhere could it be that both sides don't have to be ATG2 or UBL and thus my STU might even be allowed ('Simpler Than UBL' design for UBL model), and maybe binary XML too. All the best Stephen Green >>> "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> 02/03/07 13:17:39 >>> At 2007-03-02 12:54 +0100, Bryan Rasmussen wrote: > >>For example - if the Russian Government said - "we'd love to use UBL - > >>but we need different tagnames for in country use" - then having the > >>option to use CAM to morph between localization details and say an EU > >>base-line - would obviously be enabling... and overall I'm guessing the > >>bigger goal is UBL adoption and use, rather than say driving XSD > >>adoption and use!?! > > >This isn't a new idea and my comments regarding not supporting this > >have nothing to do with CAM. ISO/IEC 19757-8 Document Schema > >Renaming Language (DSRL) was also posited to address the use case of > >a community of UBL users wanting to have "local" names for a > >transliterated (not transformed) document vocabulary equivalent in > >structure to UBL. This has already been discussed. > >Is this part of the DSDL? Yes, it is: http://dsdl.org Here is the FCD ballot document: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0792c.htm . . . . . . . . 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]