Re: [ubl-dev] Mime types for UBL 2.1 JSON Alternative Representation

Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] Mime types for UBL 2.1 JSON Alternative Representation

On 9 May 2017 at 23:08, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com> wrote:

One comment for the benefit of readers and developers: the JSON alternative representation and the published JSON schemas have yet to be finalized because we have insufficient feedback from developers regarding this draft cited by Troels:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-2.1-JSON/v1.0/UBL-2.1-JSON-v1.0.html

It is good to see a company such as Tradeshift working with our draft publication, and we hope to see more companies consider our work products. If you have an interest in JSON, please do your own testing and send your feedback through the UBL Public Comment list for the UBL Technical Committee.

Better yet, you could consider joining OASIS and joining our committee!

Please be aware that at this time the JSON Alternative Representation is considered non-normative. At this time the only normative components of UBL are the business objects and the XML Schemas. Of course the committee will consider future additions of normative components, again based on feedback from the user community.

Our users are important to us ... using the proper channels please give us your feedback!

. . . . . . . . . Ken

At 2017-05-09 08:40 -0400, G. Ken Holman wrote:

At 2017-05-09 14:10 +0200, Troels NÃ¸rgaard NIelsen wrote:

Dear UBL Committee

Thanks, Troels, but the UBL-Dev is the wrong forum for you to address your input to the committee. Could I please ask you to re-post your note in its entirety either to the UBL Public Comment list or through one of your two existing UBL Committee member representatives who are able to post to the internal member list?

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=ubl

Thanks for this feedback! We appreciate all feedback from committee members and non-members alike.

. . . . . . . . Ken

Tradeshift is happy to see the formalization of an JSON alternative UBL representation in form of JSON (draft-04) Schemas [0]. We are in the process of aligning our own JSON representations to match these. In that process, we would like to differentiate between our own JSON representation and the official [0] using Mime Types (RFC7231, Section 3.1, Content-Type; RFC4288 Section 3.2). While we could use our own, vendor-based, Mime Type for this purpose, we strongly believe in inter-operability and standardization.

I have been unable to find any previous discussion of this, please bear with me if this has been discussed before:
Are there plans for submitting Mime Types for UBL to IANA [1]?
If such name(s) has been submitted, what are they?

In liu of any previous discussion, we would like kick it of the following suggestions:

# Universal Business Language XML Canonical Representation
application/vnd.oasis.ubl+xml

# Universal Business Language JSON Alternative Representation
application/vnd.oasis.ubl+json

Thank you for your consideration.

[0] https://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-2.1-JSON/v1.0/UBL-2.1-JSON-v1.0.html
[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types

Kinds regards
Troels NÃ¸rgaard
Tradeshift

--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

ubl-dev message