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] XML NDRs: UBL 2.0, 2.1, CEFACT 2.1, 3.0


Pim,

A quick look at the CEFACT NDR (I've been out of the loop for
both NDRs for a while) tells me the main difference is still that
UBL uses the 'Garden of Eden' pattern of all global elements
and all global types

e.g. for some fictitious XyzType

<xsd:complexType name="XyzType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element ref="ID"/>
<xsd:element ref="Name"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>

whereas the CEFACT design is what I think is called
Venetian Blind and has types declared globally but elements
locally
e.g.
<xsd:complexType name="XyzType">
<xsd:sequence>
<xsd:element name="ID" type="IDType"/>
<xsd:element name="Name" type="NameType"/>
</xsd:sequence>
</xsd:complexType>

These differences carry on in version 3 of CEFACT NDR and
2.1 of UBL NDR.

These fundamental designs go a long way to determining other
differences such as UBL using imports and not using includes
whereas includes are used in CEFACT schemas.

The codelist difference affects UBL 2.1 more than UBL 2.0 as
UBL 2.1 finally detaches the remaining CEFACT codelists that
were still tightly bound to the schemas in UBL 2.0. The CEFACT
codelists may still be used but are not tied to the schemas.

Like I say though, I've been out of the development for some time
now and just follow the progress from a bit of a distance (day job
limitations, etc) but this is how it looks to me re the NDRs.

----
Stephen D Green



On 18 April 2011 16:40, Pim van der Eijk <lists@sonnenglanz.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 1) What are the changes (if any) between this CS and the UBL 2.1 Appendix G
> NDR ?
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 2) What are the changes (if any) between the CEFACT version 3.0 NDR and the
> latest UBL NDRs ?
>
> 3)  What are the changes (if any) between
> this version 3.0 CEFACT NDR and the earlier CEFACT version 2.0 NDR ?
>
> Pim
>
>


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