Re: [ubl-dev] Question about (in progress) UBL 2.1

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Thanks Ken.

I'll probably send the same question, then, to the comment list so it
can be considered by the TC.
I respect your answer though (of course) in that it explains that the
'rules' are as yet to some extent
a matter of trial and error but that it requires a fairly good
understanding of the outcome (regarding
the eventually generated schema artefacts) on the part of those
updating the model. I guess my own
opinion in favour of there being a documented set of rules would be to
help anyone submitting their
further requirements to the TC for future versions so that they can
get some idea of what would be
feasible. Plus there are probably similar reasons as were behind the
NDR why such documented rules
would be good to set down and publish. In a way, I suppose although
the NDR relates to the schema
design, it might be incomplete without such model rules too (albeit as
a separate document and
perhaps for a different audience).

Best regards and thanks again

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




On 29 July 2010 14:40, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:
> (speaking only for myself and not as an official TC member; Steve, such a
> question should be sent to the comment list for an official answer)
>
> At 2010-07-29 09:09 +0100, Stephen Green wrote:
>>
>> Nice to see that UBL 2.1 is coming along well.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Just a question regarding how it has been kept compatible with UBL 2.0:
>>
>> Presumably the compatibility has been maintained at model level via
>> some rules of some sort
>
> Indeed.  But I don't think these were ever articulated.
>
>> but are these rules the fully published in the latest customisation guide
>
> No, because that is not a guideline for the creation of 2.x+1 (which is a TC
> responsibility), it is a guideline for people to create customizations
> (subsets and user extensions) of 2.x (for their own use).  Different task
> and different audience.
>
>> and if so, is that the one on the UBL TC home page,
>> i.e.
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/guidelines/UBL2-Customization1.0cs01.pdf ?
>> If not, are rules for progressing from a UBL version 2.x to a version
>> 2.x+1
>> going to be published?
>
> I can't recall that being an action item, and I'm not sure that is important
> to the UBL user outside of the TC.  Though, of course, all TC documents are
> made publicly available, so if we *had* such a document you would get to see
> it.
>
> Note that in light of the importance of *measuring* that version 2.x+1 is
> backward compatible with 2.x, there are checks that can be done after the
> fact, rather than rules that are followed during the process.  Indeed, these
> checks identified a number of backwards-compatibility issues through the
> process, each of which were addressed in turn until we finally have a 2.1
> that appears by all programmatic checks I could conceive to be fully
> backward compatible with 2.0.
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201005/msg00013.html
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201006/msg00033.html
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201007/msg00017.html
>  (and others)
>
> ... culminating in my report to the TC yesterday:
>
>  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/201007/msg00043.html
>
> ... where you can see there are zero detected errors in all of the areas
> related to backwards compatibility.
>
> Of course when the 2.1 public review draft schemas are out in the wild we
> may discover new issues of backwards compatibility that can be added to the
> programmatic checks.
>
> But, hand on heart, I'm quite confident *every* schema-valid UBL 2.0
> instance will be considered schema-valid with the draft UBL 2.1 schemas.
>  I'm hoping to be proved right or wrong so that we know any outstanding
> issues are addressed.
>
> Thanks for the question!
>
> . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
> --
> XSLT/XQuery training:   after http://XMLPrague.cz 2011-03-28/04-01
> Vote for your XML training:   http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/i/
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
> G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Male Cancer Awareness Nov'07  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
>
>