[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Applicability of 'Forwarding instructions' in the absence of an ordering context
[stephengreenubl@gmail.com:] | I have some reservations about how general statements in the main | body of the UBL 2 spec relate to conformant use of the UBL | document types, in comparison to the weight of the schemas and | their definitions. There's no comparison between the two. The process descriptions, are, strictly speaking, semantic; that is, they provide the semantic context for the schemas. Part of the answer to the question "What's an Invoice?" is that it's the thing that fulfills the role of Invoice in the relevant process diagrams. But the description does not limit your use of an Invoice document. This is stated at the beginning of Section 4 of the UBL 2.0 Standard: The processes described in this section, and the business rules associated with them, define a context for the use of UBL 2.0 business documents. They are normative insofar as they provide semantics for the UBL document schemas, but they should not be construed as limiting the application of those schemas. The distinction is critical from the viewpoint of standards development because it makes clear that UBL is not an initiative to define process conformance; if it were, we'd still be years away from producing anything useful. It's an initiative to define document conformance. | As such I would interpret UBL's conformance requirements (still to | be fully elaborated in the forthcoming Customisation Guidelines) | as implying that as long as the use of the documents doesn't | contravene the document definitions found in the schemas then | reuse of the documents is OK without change when the instance | structure, semantics and syntax conform to the schemas. It's actually even looser than that. The Customization Guidelines are still a work in progress, but we've arrived at a very clear distinction between *conformance* and *compatibility.* From the latest draft: 2.1.1. UBL Conformance UBL conformance at the instance and schema level means there are no constraint violations when validating the instance against a standard UBL schema. A UBL conformant instance is an instance that validates against a standard UBL document schema. A UBL conformant schema is a schema that will validate only UBL conformant instances. 2.1.2. UBL Compatibility To be UBL compatible means to be consistent with the principles behind UBL's models or their development. These principles are defined in the ebXML Core Component Technical Specification and the UBL Naming and Design Rules. While we cannot assume conformance and interoperability of these customized documents, we can expect some degree of familiarity through the re-use of common objects. | I don't think it has yet been made a firm conformance requirement | that a document's use match the UBL 2 spec process diagram and | description. Otherwise this would need to be added to the | Custmisation Guidelines document and I don't think this has been | included in the latest draft. Adherence to the process diagrams will never be a UBL conformance requirement. As noted in the definitions above, UBL conformance is a strictly mechanical concept that has only to do with validation against the Standard schemas. Compatibility, on the other hand, does depend on semantic alignment, and defining this dependence cleanly is still a near-term work item for the Customization Guidelines. Whether adherence to the process diagrams is a requirement for compatibility (as opposed to conformance) is an interesting question, and I thank the group for raising it as an issue. Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]