Re: [ubl-dev] JSON alternative UBL representation

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

Thank you for this valuable feedback, but 
unfortunately you have used the incorrect channel to contact the committee.

Please make the effort to send these comments to 
the UBL Comment List as your colleague has done here:

  https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/201705/msg00000.html

Details are found here:

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

Thank you, again, Casper!

. . . . . Ken

At 2017-08-29 08:37 +0000, Casper Rafn-Nørregård wrote:

> Dear UBL Committee
>
> 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 have tried 
> to perform JSON schema validation using the schemas published here [1]
>
> I have the following comments:
>
> 1: The "common" and "maindoc" JSON schemas are lacking the $id property,
>
> Â Â Â From the spec:
>
> Â Â Â "The "$id" keyword defines a URI for the 
> schema, and the base URI that other URI 
> references within the schema are resolved 
> against. The "$id" keyword itself is resolved 
> against the base URI that the object as a whole appears in."
>
> Â Â Â So if e.g. the "UBL-Invoice-2.1.json" would define
>
> Â Â Â "$id": 
> "<http://mynet.com/schemas/UBL-Invoice-2.1.json#>http://mynet.com/schemas/UBL-Invoice-2.1.json#";
>
> Â Â Â and the "UBL-CommonBasicComponents-2.1" would define
>
> Â Â Â "$id": 
> "<http://mynet.com/schemas/UBL-CommonBasicComponents-2.1.json#>http://mynet.com/schemas/UBL-CommonBasicComponents-2.1.json#";
>
> Â Â Â Then references should be written like
>
> Â Â Â "$ref": "UBL-CommonBasicComponents-2.1.json#/definitions/UBLVersionID"
>
> Â Â Â Which is much cleaner IMHO than the 
> relative path solution, which also is not a 
> valid URI e.g. "../common/", and also to my knowledge how most tools work.
>
> 2: Any plan for updating the schema version to the final version?
>
> 3: The DateType in UBL-UnqualifiedDataTypes-2.1.json is defined as
>
> Â Â Â allOf: [
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â {
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â type: "string",
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â format: "date-time"
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â },
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â {
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â type: "string",
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â pattern: "^-*[^T:-]+-[^T:]+$"
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â }
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ]
>
> Â Â Â I believe that to be contradicting since 
> "date-time" is "full-date "T" full-time" [2], 
> that cannot coexist with the regex pattern as well.
>
> I have been unable to find any previous 
> discussion of this, please bear with me if this has been discussed before.
>
> I have uploaded a ZIP file containing a small 
> node script that can do validation of an 
> invoice. Also an upgraded version of the JSON schemas to version 6 is included.
>
> 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>https://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-2.1-JSON/v1.0/UBL-2.1-JSON-v1.0.html
>
> [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-2.1-JSON/v1.0/cnd02/json-schema/
>
> [2] <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339
>
> [3] 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwBEXaUe1bJIdTVHaUlpY3J1VXM/view?usp=sharing
>
> Best regards
>
> Casper Rafn-Nørregård
>
> Tradeshift
>
> --
> Casper Rafn-Nørregård
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Cell: +45 25321282
> Skype: casper.rafn
> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/casperrafn>@casperrafn
>
> TRADESHIFT
> The Business Commerce PlatformÂ
> <http://tradeshift.com/>tradeshift.com ×? 
> <http://blog.tradeshift.com/>tradeshift blog


--
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) |