Re: [ubl-lcsc] FW: [ubl-ndrsc] Domain Namespaces

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

OK thanks for the clarification - i guess its over to 
Bill..........................................

Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

> Tim, I believe there is a misunderstanding. This is not a comment on the
> release. This is in answer to the question
>
> >>>>II. What "Domain" Should Receipt Advice and Despatch Advice be 
> Part of
> >>>>
> >>>>It's fairly clear where the ordering and invoicing document types
> >>>>should to, but we don't know where to put Receipt Advice or Despatch
> >>>>Advice document types.  Do we need another domain or two?
> >>>>
> >>>>Please, LCSC, prescribe a domain/home for each of those document
> >>>>types.
>
> which is contained in the communication from NDR to LC -- this is an 
> addendum,
> as it were, to that communication.
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> Tim McGrath wrote:
>
>> thanks again - as i suggested before these comments are best dealt 
>> with by submission, following the due process of the review.  we will 
>> not be debating them on this list until we have all comments in.
>>
>>
>> Burcham, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> (forwarded at Eduardo's request)
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:46 PM
>>>> To: Burcham, Bill
>>>> Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Domain Namespaces
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was there no talk of an "Advice" domain? Surely those two Advice 
>>>> doctypes are not the last advice ones to be generated, are they? I 
>>>> don't know, I have no expertise at all in this area...
>>>>
>>>> Burcham, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>> (This is a communiqué from the NDRSC to the LCSC.  I've been 
>>>>> appointed
>>>>> to communicate our consensus on these issues.)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a couple disparities between the NDR guidelines and the way
>>>>> the 0p70 schemas actually came together.  These became evident in 
>>>>> this morning's NDR meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I. Namespace per Domain -- not per Document
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>> From lines 650-653 in version 21 of the NDR doc
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>> (http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/release/wd-ublndrsc-ndrdoc 
>>>>>
>>>>> -21.do
>>>>> c):
>>>>>
>>>>>     Two higher-level "domain" namespaces are defined, one for the
>>>>> "ordering" domain and another for the "invoicing"
>>>>>     domain. The Order Domain namespace defines message types and 
>>>>> ABIEs specific to the ordering domain. Similarly, the
>>>>>     Invoice Domain namespace defines message types and ABIEs 
>>>>> specific to
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>> the invoicing domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> We would therefore expect to see document types for Order, Order
>>>>> Cancellation, Order Response, Order Response Simple all defined in 
>>>>> a single "Order Domain" namespace.  Unfortunately, that isn't the 
>>>>> case in 0p70.  That release assigns each document type to its own 
>>>>> separate namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>> The recommendation here is that in the next UBL release we merge 
>>>>> those
>>>>> many namespaces into one, "Order".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> II. What "Domain" Should Receipt Advice and Despatch Advice be 
>>>>> Part of
>>>>>
>>>>> It's fairly clear where the ordering and invoicing document types
>>>>> should to, but we don't know where to put Receipt Advice or 
>>>>> Despatch Advice document types.  Do we need another domain or two?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, LCSC, prescribe a domain/home for each of those document
>>>>> types.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> III. The "Common Aggregate Types" Namespace is Bloated
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Reusable" or "Common Aggregate Types" (cat) namespace was
>>>>> designed to contain vocabulary _shared_ between the various domain 
>>>>> namespaces. Unfortunately, in the 0p70 release, the cat namespace 
>>>>> contains many vocabulary items that are _not_ shared between the 
>>>>> various domains.  In fact it contains the whole vocabulary sans 
>>>>> the CCT's and the document types themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was about to ask LCSC to perform an analysis to partition the
>>>>> vocabulary elements but in thinking about it I realize that is the 
>>>>> _wrong_ way to approach this.  Instead I'd like to ask NDRSC (or 
>>>>> Tools and Techniques) to generate an analysis tool that will do 
>>>>> this partitioning for us.  Once we find homes for the document 
>>>>> types (in the various domain namespaces) it should be a small 
>>>>> matter to identify the vocabulary elements that are shared among 
>>>>> two or more domains.  Those would go into the cat namespace.  For 
>>>>> the remainder, each would be "pushed up" into a domain namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>>>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> regards
>> tim mcgrath
>> fremantle  western australia 6160
>> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
>>
>
>

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