[ubl-ndrsc] RE: [ubl-lcsc] Newest version of the OO-design positionpaper

ubl-ndrsc message

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

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.

-----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.

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.