Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers?
Okay, I am flogging the donkey here. I realize the rules we had created caused more problems than they solved, but.... I am not comfortable with generated containers, but I do believe we still have too flat a model. By trying to have a one to one relationship from model to XSD, we are missing something in the middle (which is going make for better XML) that will allow the use of, funtional area type containers, less problematic. I think our spreadsheet tool has actually hurt us a lot here, it does not allow for 3D modeling and was never meant for that. By using a spreadsheet to model our library we have painted ourselves into a corner that is difficult to get out, and we knew that going into this. I am hoping that the work we did in Montreal and have done since of developing containers within structures that we already had, but had created more singularly will continue. I like Dan's idea of the <OrderDetails> containing the details of the order, like buyer, seller, PO numbers, etc. and <Order> containing the actual line items or what is being ordered. It is think kind of containerization I was aiming at from the very beginning, and this kind of containers that will make the use of UBL easier to the developers and implementors. If you have an order with 1,000 line items, having them all at the same level at the OrderDate, PONumbers, etc does not allow for easy use, human readability, or ease of implementation. We do have to think about the everyday business person who is going to be using UBL from XSD schema and needs to be able to quickly get up and running. Lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Vint" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:12 PM Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] Containers? > Just got to thinking about the line items and the head issue/rules. I don't > want to prolong the discussion but like several folks I'm a proponent of > containers, but maybe not "generated" containers. It appears that ABIEs are > containers that the business folks somehow deem important/worthy of being > business objects. > > In John's email he mentioned the Line Items were not in a container and on > today's call the indication was that the rules for having a "head" group > separate from the "body" group was also going to be removed. > > Don't other people see an "order" being composed of something like this? > > <PurchaseOrder> > <OrderDetails> > Date > Purchaser > Shipping Address > etc > </OrderDetails> > <Order> > <Item> * > sku > color > qty ordered > part number > desc > price > </item> > </Order> > </PurcahseOrder> > > Now I've written these as XML, but aren't these general concepts that you > would talk about and work with normally? Those look like some of the > containers we were trying to generate Head => OrderDetails and Container => > Order. > > I haven't looked at the details but maybe someone is being to "strict" on > the business data/library side and there are some more natural objects that > would satisfy some of our qualms/feelings that something is wrong and still > allow the Library folks to work with business data and not worry about XML > details. In this case it isn't just an XML concern it feels like something > is missing anyway. > > ..dan > ------------------------------------------------------- > Danny Vint > ACORD ACORD > 2 Blue Hill Plaza - 3rd Floor > firstname.lastname@example.org Pearl River, NY 10965 > http://www.acord.org > > Voice:510:522-4703 HQ Phone: 845.620.1700 > FAX: 801-749-3229 > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php. > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003