OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-lcsc message

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

Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.

Title: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.

Well, I can only agree!


Stig Korsgaard

M.Sc.E., Standardisation Coordinator

Danish Bankers Association

Tel: +45 33 70 10 83

Cell: +45 21 21 82 34

Fax: +45 33 93 02 60

E-mail: stk@finansraadet.dk


-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: 23. august 2002 15:28
To: 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design po sition paper.




You wrote -


But all (and really all) XML instances will be processed by applications and tools only. Only the designers, developers and support peoples are reading less XML instances partially. Therefore, we have to think about which kind of "containers" and "groups" are necessary and efficient for applications (not for humans).



I don't think this fits with what we have identified as our core principles. To wit -



         Legibility - UBL documents should be human-readable and reasonably clear

         Simplicity - The design of UBL must be as simple as possible (but no simpler).



Hello Joe,


I do not know, why we need this high-level containers like "Header, Summary, Party etc.". This is a separation for humans, because all layouts of the hard copies of business documents are divided in this strucute.


Kind regards,




-----Original Message-----
From: CHIUSANO, Joseph [mailto:JCHIUSANO@lmi.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. August 2002 19:13
To: Stuhec, Gunther; 'Gregory, Arofan'; 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.



Regarding CCTS compliance:  I don't recall anywhere in the CCTS v1.8 spec that mandates the structure of XML documents in regard to Dictionary Entry Names (I could have missed that detail, though).  I believe that these are 2 separate and distinct concepts.


In any event, I don't believe the paper made a strong enough case for doing away with "good" (in my opinion) structure principles (the container approach, as we call it).  Plus, I think it makes great sense to divide such documents into high-level containers such as Header, Detail (or LineItem), and Summary,  I believe the arguments in the paper were weighted much too heavily on tools and performance - and while always a valid concern, I don't believe that in this day and age either should be a concern to this regard (that is, what "harm" will a few additional containership tags do for performance).  I would personally like to see a much stronger case made for the proposed approach.


Thanks for listening.



  Joseph M. Chiusano
  Logistics Management Institute
  2000 Corporate Ridge
  McLean, VA 22102
  Email: jchiusano@lmi.org
  Tel: 571.633.7722

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuhec, Gunther [mailto:gunther.stuhec@sap.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:08 PM
To: 'Gregory, Arofan'; 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.

Hello Arofan,


XML is not a hype anymore. One of that reason is the complexity of the business documents. The most of the business documents have too much hierarchies. More than EDIFACT or ANSI ASC X.12 ever have. These many hierarchies makes the business documents very heavy or not at all processable. I know some projects, which had some big problems with the many hierarchies.

- It was not possible to put this documents or part of these documents into the databases

- It was a big effort to realize any application interface for processing these documents

- Additionally, the effort to define a XSLT rule was much more higher as for defining any mapping rules for EDIFACT and Inhouse formats.


I guess that the instances itself do not need any containers, because it is easier to define any interfaces for business objects.


My suggestion is that we have partial object classes instead of unstructured containers. This partial object classes makes the building of structure much more controllable and the partial object classes are reausable, too.


Otherwise, if we use "containers", than we need some simple rules for the definition and processing in a automatic manner. One another import thing is, that the names containers impacts the dictionary entry name. If you use a container with the name "header", than the dictionary entry name will be "order.header.id" instead of "order.id". This representation is not ebXML CCTS compliant.


Kind regards,




-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory, Arofan [mailto:arofan.gregory@commerceone.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 20. August 2002 23:20
To: Stuhec, Gunther; 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.


I have a fairly basic question for you.

Today, most business applications do not view XML business documents as a direct serialization of the objects that they use internally. Rather, the business document represents a somewhat truncated version of the object hierarchy, designed for exchange between applications. While I see the value of having a formal relationship between the model on which the object hierarchy is based, and on which the business document definitions are based, I have always thought that the serialization from one to the other was a very useful level of indirection - different apps may actually want to take the same object structures and treat them differently, given that they generally perform different functions.

You approach removes this level of indirection (as well as all the containers, making it difficult to use for non-object-based systems, a different issue) - are you sure that this is the best approach?

What I am trying to get at here is the middle ground between a strictly object-based approach, and one that will be suited for use by other types of applications, while not losing the merits of what you have outlined.



-----Original Message-----
From: Stuhec, Gunther [mailto:gunther.stuhec@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 1:57 PM
To: 'ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design position paper.


Hello all,
this is our newest version of the OO-design position paper. It describes generally the definition of aggregate core components as well as the aggregated business information entities.

In this paper all aggregates representing an object. The subelements which are basic business information entities representing the attributes of an objects. An the aggregates insided of an objects are further objects or parts of an objects. The object itself refers to these furhter objects.

In addition all containers are avoided, consciously.  Because it is not possible to represents containers as objects with attributes and influence the representation of a conclusive class diagram unfavorably. 

Please review this document and send me your comments and remarks.

Kind regards,



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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC