[ubl-lcsc] Re: Draft mapping for stylesheets

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

At 2003-01-30 14:59 +0800, Tim McGrath wrote:
>As discussed I have attempted to map the 0p70 elements to your layout forms.

Thank you!

>Please find attached the initial results.  Rather than fax the handwritten 
>forms, I updated your HTML notes - i hope that is OK for you.

Perfect, Tim ... that is better than a fax.  Some have had problems with 
the large diagnostic files on their machines of limited memory (I've 
documented a warning about the very large diagnostic files), but from what 
I can tell it seems that you were able to use them.

BTW, for those with limited memory on their machines the text-based 
diagnostic files (e.g. 220order0.key.rpt.txt) can be read by a simple text 
editor without crashing your machine while the HTML-based diagnostic files 
(e.g. 220order0.key.rpt.html) could very well crash your session.  If you 
can use the HTML, though, then clicking on the XPath expressions in the 
HTML report from an IE browser will copy the XPath address to the clipboard 
for pasting into your documentation.

By documenting the fields formally with the XPath expressions and 
accompanying text, I'm anticipating this will be unambiguous ... I'm 
looking forward to going through what you've sent, Tim.

It would be nice if the input from all members of the team could (1) 
indicate their interpretations of the XPath addresses for the fields, and 
(2) feed back to me the efficiency of specifying their needs using the 
methods that I've created and provided here (this is the first time I've 
worked with a team in this fashion and only guessed at what would be useful 
tools).

>1. In building the Invoice and Despatch Advice, I revisited the Order form 
>and updated some fields there as well.  I also suspect that the 
>documentation needs updated since the last 'booger' release :-[

Probably ... I was reluctant to invest a lot in the documentation before 
the schemas were finalized.

>2. We appear to be missing (or at least ambiguosuly defined) some 
>components of the Despatch Advice. In particular the Vessel/flight No - 
>for which i could find not meaningful equivalent. [[NB This should be 
>logged somewhere in the 'issues' list ]]

Is this an "issue" for me, or for LCSC or NDRSC?

>3. w.r.t. the Invoice. - the form has no places for allowances/charges and 
>tax details.  I suspect we should adopt common business practice and put 
>these under the list of Items, using the Description and Amount 
>columns.  However this makes the mapping rules quite tricky - so i have 
>ignored them in this first draft.

Well ... use your imagination and tell me what you want to see, and I'll 
let you know if they are too tricky or not.

>Let me know if this is suitable and i will carry on with the other forms.

I haven't delved deep into them yet, but I will let you know.

At 2003-01-30 15:05 +0800, Tim McGrath wrote:
>4. In cases of line extension of prices and summary totals, we do not want 
>to have these calculated.  The XML documents will carry these totals and 
>we should use these.

Really?  I saw them in 0p65 but I couldn't recognize them in 0p70 so I did 
the calculations.  Jean also thought at one point that they might be 
calculated, but wasn't sure.  I'll look through your submission and make 
the appropriate changes to use the values as given.

>Perhaps you may wish to calculate and compare them then alert of 
>differences, but it isn't safe to assume they must match.  Business rules 
>always follow the transmitted totals.

Then I won't flag discrepancies.  I'll take what I receive as gospel and 
blindly display the values.

>5. Apart from a few typos on my behalf, i had to invent and use qualifiers 
>for the Invoice and Despatch Advice elements.  I opted for 'in' and 
>'da'.  Am i correct in doing this?

Yes, actually the diagnostic files already give you the prefixes that I am 
assuming in my stylesheets (although prefixes are arbitrary, using the ones 
in the diagnostic files will be consistent with my stylesheet files):

T:\ssdebug\380inv\test>head 380inv0.key.rpt.txt
1   /in:Invoice/cat:ID
1.1 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@language
1.2 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencyID
1.3 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencySchemeAgencyID
1.4 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencySchemeID
1.5 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeDataURI
1.6 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeID
1.7 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeURI
1.8 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@schemeVersionID
1.9 /in:Invoice/cat:ID/@UID

T:\ssdebug\380inv\test>cd ..\..\351dsadv\test

T:\ssdebug\351dsadv\test>head 351dsadv0.key.rpt.txt
1   /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID
1.1 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@language
1.2 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencyID
1.3 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencySchemeAgencyID
1.4 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeAgencySchemeID
1.5 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeDataURI
1.6 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeID
1.7 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeURI
1.8 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@schemeVersionID
1.9 /da:DespatchAdvice/cat:ID/@UID

T:\ssdebug\351dsadv\test>

Thanks again, Tim ... I'm looking forward to working with your input and 
will report back on the use of your information.

...................... Ken


--
Upcoming hands-on in-depth   Europe:         February 17-21, 2003
XSLT/XPath and/or XSL-FO     North America:      June 16-20, 2003

G. Ken Holman                mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.         http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0   +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6                      Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5                              Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X  Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-10-1              Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc