RE: [Fwd: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL Adoption Group?]

[roberto@javest.com]

Hello David,
the idea I described is a little different.

I am not talking about a specific technology, API or engine to use with UBL.

I supposed there should be such a public service exposed using WS and/or
ebXML to let anyone "test" online its UBL environment/system/application
with certified xml instances based on a set of downloadable customized XSD
schemas representing all the main use case of UBL
subsetting/profiling/derivation/extension.

Something like this:

Test Environment Public WebSite
|
+----- Downloadable Subset Sample (XSD bundle)
+----- Downloadable Profiled Subset Sample (XSD bundle)
+----- Downloadable XSD Derivation Customization Sample (XSD bundle)
+----- Downloadable UBL Extensions Customization Sample (XSD bundle)
|
+----- Web Service / ebXML to receive an UBL instance based on each of the
previous customization cases.

Vendor Software
|
+----- Setup a WS or ebXML environment
+----- Setup their UBL solution using a customization test (XSD bundle)
+----- Receive an UBL instance from the public test environment
+----- Send back an ApplicationResponse with results

or a better conformancy test could be:

- Receive a Quotation
- Send back an Order with all items available into the Quotation

The Vendor is not constrained to use JCam or another specific technology,
this is just an UBL Conformance Test (like the validation services
available at the W3C website).

Of course this could be made in a simpler way by sending just an e-mail
with an UBL attachment...

Maybe such conformancy test public service could be made together the
ebXML TC.

It is just a brain storming...

Have a nice week-end David.

Best Regards,

Roberto Cisternino
co-chair
UBL ITLSC

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Roberto,

What you are suggesting here is entirely enabled with the CAM
specification and jCAM engine.

<snip>Then if a software, driver, engine, ... will be able to pass all
 published interop tests, it could be elegible to show an "UBL Conformant"
Logo on
 their software as quality symbol.
</snip>

I'm not sure about this "UBL Inside" logo though - probably take you more
time to decide on the design and artwork and have that approved than to
write the CAM templates for the software.

 ; -)

DW

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


 ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
 Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] UBL Adoption Group?
 From: roberto@javest.com
 Date: Fri, May 25, 2007 10:47 am
 To: "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@bristol.gov.uk>
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Hi Stephen,

 I see, you are right UBL is really more than EDI, this is because of XML
 family of standards used (e.g. an XSLT definition is a piece of a
 controller)

 The logic to accept or skip an incoming message could be located into
 many places:

 1) Expressed using XML (like schematron or as a result of a pipeline of
 validations).
 2) hard coded client-side using Javascript
 3) hard coded server-side using JSP/Servlet/PHP/ASP

 Whatever a software house will choose the "right" way or not, I think an
 interoperability test could be as simple as providing a set of UBL
 instances and XSDs that sufficiently cover the main set of customization
 use cases (subsetting, profiling, derivation, extensions) for the purpose
 of a "public" interop test (available as WS or ebXML service).

 Then if a software, driver, engine, ... will be able to pass all
 published interop tests, it could be elegible to show an "UBL Conformant"
Logo on
 their software as quality symbol.

 I put some fantasy here, but I think is not a so bad idea, what you think
 about ?

 Regards,

 Roberto Cisternino

 > Good morning Roberto
 >
 > Interesting point. What, then, about standards or test assertions
 related to the 'controller'? I guess this gets to the point in an
 interesting way: UBL was mostly about standardising the 'model'
 > if you think of things as MVC. But was it really? UBL is by name:
 >
 > 1. universal - it is not just for Europe
 > 2. for business - it has to provide what is needed to conduct business
 (universally)
 > 3. a language - it has to make sense equally not just to the sender
 ('speaker') but to the receiver too
 > (and they are likely to be on different continents - why else would
 they
 be interested in UBL)
 >
 > For this to all be so it has to include more than just model.
 >
 > Sure, it includes a model and provides a model to a document
 >
 > But the document it the focus (for conducting business B2B) and not the
 application which uses it. So as a document it is more than data and
 structure,
 > it is logic and function too. These aspects have to work and they have
 to work
 > universally.
 >
 > Interesting discussion. To me this what I'm trying in SystML to further
 and follow
 > through but a key part of that (as other early adopting * customers
 * of
 UBL
 > tended to agree) is identification of a 'core', due to the size and
 complexity which
 > has been for some a real barrier. Once that core is identified, and
 what
 I'm getting
 > from yourself, Roberto, is that the core is not just model but
 controller too (and
 > Ken would add 'view too' from the perspective of writing human
 interface
 stylesheets),
 > then there are further steps to take, which is what I get from Tim's
 comments.
 > In SystML I'd like to ensure that the core is identified without losing
 the 'universal'
 > aspect of UBL - not allwoing it to be just a core for a 'european
 business language'
 > which would negate its true distinctive value. So catering for
 S.American, N.American,
 > Middle Eastern, Carribean, South East Asian, ... global
 requirements is
 what UBL set
 > out to do and I think the time has come to make moves to fulfill that
 goal; perhaps
 > applying relevant aspects of lessons learned in Europe and Asia, yes.
 >
 > A way other standards-related efforts have well-proven for this purpose
 is through
 > globally scoped profiling efforts - first identify a core then provide
 profiles for more
 > specific things (in this case localisation and vertical customisation).
 The SBS was an
 > initial effort for UBL 1.0. Maybe it will do the core identification
 for
 2.0. I'm just thinking
 > about there being an umbrella now for this like was originally strongly
 suggested for
 > the SBS - some said create another TC for it or Adoption TC. That was
 too expensive
 > then. Plus now there is the option of a Member Section which seems most
 relevant.
 > I remember our CEO even asked for us to do it back then. Maybe now is
 the time.
 >
 > Many thanks for weedling this out of me.
 >
 > All the best
 >
 > Steve
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------------------------------------
 > Stephen Green
 >
 > Senior IT Officer
 > Bristol City Council
 > Room G34, Romney House
 > Romney Avenue
 > Bristol BS99 3HB
 > Tel: 0117 922 3794
 > Fax: 0117 922 4877
 > Email: stephen_green@bristol.gov.uk
 >
 >
 >
 >>>> <roberto@javest.com> 25/05/07 06:50 >>>
 > ...
 >> conflicting concepts of minor aspects of the various subsets. There
 could,
 >> for instance, be some subsets which disallow non-subset data and
 others
 which
 >> tolerate it with some qualifications (like the 'must understand'
 versus
 'can ignore' principles). These approaches haven't been aligned so
 there are chances for conflicting systems which could probably be
 avoided with a
 >> seeking of a common understanding and formalised approach.
 >
 > Mmm... as a developer I think such tolerance is not the task of UBL
 in a
 MVC paradigm, as the "Controller" should take care of this.
 > The reason is an XML based system MUST NOT ignore validations
 expecially
 the 1st structural/lexical step (XSD) otherwise we return back to HTML.
 >
 > A tolerant system should use a filter befor validate (as proposed by
 KH)
 or just block the incoming instance and let the user to design a
 specific mapping to import it (an EDI practise).
 >
 > ______________________________________________________________________
 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
 >
 >


 Roberto Cisternino



 Roberto Cisternino

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 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