Re: [ubl-lcsc] UBL-Boeing Example update v0.15

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

you are correct that we need ways to add industry specific vocabulary - 
and this is what the whole 'context' issue is about.  however, it is not 
simply a technical matter of XML or XSD syntax - it is also a matter of 
logical consistency.  For example, how do we know that what one industry 
thinks of as  its own requirements are not semantically, the same as 
anothers?  Therefore, there is also a content aspect to this issue.  I 
hope that the group will develop these ideas further next week at the 
face-to-face.  Your work here is useful input into that debate.

Furthermore, your example using the UBL Order schema that only displays 
5 elements on ken's form is not a bad example, just not as meaningful as 
it could be.  Not all UBL applications will use Ken's forms - the XML 
data is still helpful to our audience trying to interperet the schemas. 
 In fact, these are the type of XML instances we need right now - not 
ones that go above and beyond the current schemas.


Chan, Sally M wrote:

>This is the updated document.
>
>My thoughts on this morning's discussion is that using the UBL Order schema and only able to show 5 elements is not really a good example.  Using ATA structure and UBL vocabulary is not the way to go either.  
>
>In looking at the unmapped ATA data, some of it really belong to a more general category rather than aerospace specific.  LCSC should see if some of the data can be included in UBL vocabulary.  NDR should come up with a way to add industry specific vocabulary into the UBL schema  (for example OAG uses "userarea").    
>
> <<UBL-BoeingExampleV0p2.doc>> 
>
>Regards,
>
>Sally Chan
>Associate Technical Fellow
>The Boeing Company
>Boeing Commercial Airplanes
>IS - Architecture & eBusiness
>206-544-7488 
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142