Re: [ubl-dev] Subset calculation model semantics and 'extraneous variables'

[Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Thanks David.

Yes, it would be good if people could use CAM to help define the
calculation model of the semantics. Does it lend itself to defining
such things, e.g. how an invoice total is calculated?

For my part, I tried to ensure people could also use the OASIS-open
standard Test Assertions Model (or Test Assertions Markup Language
which is just a committee spec) to define the relationship between,
say, an invoice total and the other entities to be used to calculate
it.

I think the European BII project uses Schematron.

Prose is probably adequate though and has the advantage in a situation
such as a legal requirement (thinking of the EU law on e-invoices in
particular) that 'normal people' can read it.

Overall though, my main concern is that, however they do it, they do
define along with the semantics of a core (subset), the calculation
model, because otherwise it will be ambiguous and detrimentally
dependant on any entities possibly included in instances which aren't
in the standardised core. (Thinking especially of a 'core' as is soon
to be defined for e-invoices for EU public procurement.)

----
Stephen D Green

----
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with all your mind.




On 23 March 2014 21:33, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Simplicity needed? Just saying folks may want to consider the CAM template
> approach with dictionaries of components that you can visually drag and drop
> with.
>
> We have 1,000 downloads a week now worldwide, CAM is available in most all
> major European languages.
>
> If so many folks for whom English is a second language can manage to build
> simpler XML and JSON exchanges with CAM we must be doing something right...
>
> David
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ubl-dev] Subset calculation model semantics and 'extraneous
> variables'
> From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, March 23, 2014 10:49 am
> To: UBL-Dev <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Greetings UBL-Dev'ers
>
> Just a quick email to address and area of concern now that there are
> some major implementations of UBL and derivatives of UBL, especially
> in public sector.
>
> I feel a little responsible for seeking to make sure laws about using
> UBL and the like did not not impose excessive burdens on small
> businesses or organizations caught in the middle of a grand scheme to
> electronically enable business processes as part of modernization.
>
> Back when I was a local government IT officer I was concerned to
> ensure the trading parties trading with a public body didn't have to
> buy expensive software or invest too much in enabling their existing
> software if they wanted to move from paper invoices or orders to
> electronic ones. I thought with UBL a core subset should be identified
> to shield parties from the burden of shipping entities and the like
> which were part of UBL. I thought that as long as the core was the
> only part that had to be passed into the back-office systems all would
> be well and UBL could still be used. I didn't realise at that stage
> how UBL might grow with the addition of entities whose inclusion in a
> document such as an invoice could affect the totals e.g. a rounding
> amount) if the core didn't include such an entity. It seems obvious
> now, but maybe not to someone who is further from the details of UBL.
>
> A family member more scientifically up-to-date than I am tells me in
> science they refer these days to extraneous variables and try to
> eliminate them in scientific experiments and that seems analogous to
> the need to eliminate non-core entities which are significant in a
> calculation model defined for the core. I think one way to handle such
> entities is to firmly define the calculation model so only core
> entities are included in it, when the core subset is defined. Does
> that ring true?
>
> Just picture that poor dutiful, god-fearing IT officer wanting to obey
> the laws of the land and use a subset of the UBL semantics as required
> by a law but unable to process an electronic invoice in his or her
> in-house back-office system because there are too many entities for
> their limited resource finance application to handle or their
> programming skills are so challenged to handle such a complex set of
> entities that they have to give up hope of keeping in line with such
> laws. It might put them out of a job.
>
> I guess the answer is not to abandon complex model standards but it
> might be to find a way to use them but make using them a lot more
> simple than it could be if the subsets ignore the real complexity and
> push it all onto the implementing software writer or buyer.
>
> --
>
> Best regards
> ----
> Stephen D Green
>
> "Fear God and keep His commands for that is the whole duty of man."
>
> - King Solomon
>
> "The first command is this: You shall love the Lord your God with all
> your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and
> with all your mind."
>
> - The Lord Christ Jesus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org