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

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

thanks Bill,

This really constitutes a comment (rather  two and a half comments) from 
NDR on 0p70 and as such we should deal with them as with our other comments.

Can I ask you to use the feedback form 
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/0p70/UBL_Comment-0p1.rtf) 
for these items and email this to Bill Meadows (bill.meadows@sun.com).

This way we keep our our review items together and can deal with them 
collectively.

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