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: [ubl-dev] xsd for acc

Hi Danny

I replied offlist accidentally (forgot to include UBL-Dev
in recipients) but just realised I missed the point.
I mentioned that the CCT schema in UBL was mainly
there for historical reasons (originally it wasn't too
well understood that core datatypes didn't have to
derive in schema from schema expressions of CCTs).
There is no link required between a datatype and
a core component type outside of the modeling.
Now I see you may be asking about CCs in general.
Again no schema link is required, not could it be in
the CCTS where there can be no mention of XML
because implementation at that level is out of
scope for CCTS (taken up though in ATG NDRs, etc
and in UBL's NDR, etc). There is no requirement for
compliance with CCTS to do anything specific to XML.
It could all be done in the model if desired. UBL and
others have chosen to write NDRs which make rules
about *how* to comply with CCTS (like implementa-
tion guides for CCTS if you like). It was a choice to
try to align the XML-specific implementation factors
across some standards such as those I was most
aware of which were OAGIS, UBL and later ATG NDR.
The same was in parallel happening in NDRs derived
from these (such as for US Gov) - by inheritance I
suppose. This could be said
1. to be just incidental to CCTS
2. in some ways facilitated by CCTS
3. not required by CCTS.
How the XML implements the CCTS is in many ways
up to the implementers. This historically would have
been a key factor in whether to create schemas for
core components. It was not considered that for UBL
there would be any strong reason to include CCs in
schemas - since the schemas were delivered in
advance of efforts to determine what CCs the BIEs
would require (which would have to be decided later
in comparison with other groups' BIEs and involving
CEFACT TBG17 efforts). The CCTS seems to only
provide for linking BIEs somehow to CCs and (even
without XML consideration of course) doesn't seem
to me to have said how to do this - and if it did it
would by nature of CCTS be confined to model layer.

Maybe the interoperability due to CCTS is only likely
to happen in model layer, and only incidentally as
by-product of this at any schema level or other
implementation-specific (like EDI) layer. Other
interoperability however, not against CCTS rules,
has been sought at schema level through some
degree of deliberate NDR alignment (not all the
way though). Neither of the leading groups though
(UBL, OAGIS and ATG) had CCs in their schemas
when this happened (though we'd thought about it).
So the NDRs won't converge easily on this, I guess.

All the best


2008/6/20 Danny Gaethofs <dgaethofs@yahoo.com>:
> Dear all,
> I was comparing UN/CEFACT with UBL and notice that in the UBL standard there is an XSD for the ACC but in the UN/CEFACT has only an xsd for the ABIE.
> Sorry not a  question I should ask here ! But still it remains strange perhaps that is because UBL is fully based on CCTS.
> kind regards,
> Danny

Stephen D. Green

SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606
Associate Director
Document Engineering Services

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

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