Re: [ubl-dev] XML NDRs: UBL 2.0, 2.1, CEFACT 2.1, 3.0

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

(I'm responding in my role as a community member and not an official 
committee representative)

At 2011-04-18 17:40 +0200, Pim van der Eijk wrote:
>For a new project that I'm starting on I am doing some research on 
>XML Naming and Design Rules. I am trying to understand how some of 
>the recent specifications relate to each other and differ from past 
>versions.   I am hoping some people on this list can help here (and 
>I'm assuming more subscribers to this list will be interested in this).
>
>The September 2010 draft UBL 2.1 has an Appendix G on the naming and 
>design rules used for UBL 2.1:
><http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html#NDR>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd1-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html#NDR
>
>Previously, in December 2009 the UBL TC approved NDR 2.0 as a 
>Committee Specification.
><http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cs01-UBL-2.0-NDR/cs01-UBL-2.0-NDR.pdf>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cs01-UBL-2.0-NDR/cs01-UBL-2.0-NDR.pdf
>
>1) What are the changes (if any) between this CS and the UBL 2.1 
>Appendix G NDR ?

Documenting the changes is a work in progress by the UBL NDR task group.

Input to that documentation is the output from the Schema Generation 
Task Group (SGTG) that has restructured the schemas from UBL 2.0 to 
UBL 2.1.  This restructuring was necessary to remove the last 
vestiges of backwards incompatibility from the UN/CEFACT schema 
fragments that were adopted in UBL 2.0.

It happens, coincidentally, that I was working on the latest edition 
of the SGTG input to the NDR task group, and I've just posted it here:

   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=41858

... as it documents the schema tree used in the SGTG artefacts being 
prepared for PRD2 UBL 2.1 here:

   http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=41792

>In August 2007 a comparison was posted between the CEFACT version 
>2.0 NDR and the (then-current) UBL NDR:
><http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200708/msg00034.html>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200708/msg00034.html
>
>In the mean time CEFACT has published a version 3.0 of its XML NDR 
>specification:
><http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml/xml_index.htm>http://www.unece.org/cefact/xml/xml_index.htm
>
>2) What are the changes (if any) between the CEFACT version 3.0 NDR 
>and the latest UBL NDRs ?

The NDRs governing UBL 2.1 still use a UN/CEFACT copyrighted schema 
fragment for CCTS 2.01 core component types (CCT) as the lowest level 
foundation on which all of UBL 2.1 schemas are built.  This ensures 
backward compatibility with UBL 2.0.  I don't know of any other 
business vocabulary published where the CCTS 2.01 CCT fragment is, 
expressly, the foundation of the schema tree ... and I would 
appreciate it if someone knew of others so that I could analyze their 
use of the schemas.

So, I think a big part of the answer to your question is merely 
determining the differences between CCTS 3 and CCTS 2.01.

It is my second-hand understanding that CCTS 3 is not backward 
compatible with CCTS 2.01, and thus the UBL 2.x maintenance stream is 
obliged to stick with CCTS 2.01.  Which is fine, since it is meeting 
stakeholder requirements.  So all future UBL NDR 2.x will be 
documenting a schema tree based on CCTS 2.01 CCT.

>3)  What are the changes (if any) between this version 3.0 CEFACT 
>NDR and the earlier CEFACT version 2.0 NDR ?

I don't know what is in CCTS 3, but it was my understanding that it 
wasn't completed yet.  Rather than try and embrace a moving target, 
I'm waiting for CCTS 3 to be finalized, packaged up, signed off and 
delivered before determining how it can be used.

I hope this helps.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal