[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Use of Country Code and Currency Code in UBL-based applications
Hello Tony, I'm on a long flight from California to Toronto as I write this, so I don't know whether someone else will have responded to your questions before I connect again to send mail. Please forgive me if this duplicates some other reply sent in the meantime. With regard to your question about codes, I am copying this message with your orginal below to the UBL Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee and the UBL Library Content Subcommittee. The NDRSC has published a paper proposing an approach to code lists in general and will be discussing code lists at the UBL TC meeting next week in Montreal. I don't know whether the code list experts in that group will be able to respond to your question until after the meeting. I suggest that you start monitoring the ubl-ndrsc archive at OASIS for past and future discussions on this topic. | Some other questions: | | 2) Also, what are are the major differences between 0.8 schemas | and 0.7 schemas? UBL version 0.7 was a complete package (data models, schemas, UML diagrams, example instances, stylesheets, etc.) released in January for a three-month public review. We received a great deal of valuable input from that review, much of which was incorporated into the UBL data models during and after the April/May UBL TC meeting in London. UBL version 0.8, by contrast, is a very limited release consisting mainly of the revised data models and intended specifically for a special review, ending this week, by three teams of business experts. The first team, consisting of members of the Open Applications Group (OAGI), was tasked with a comparison of UBL and OAGIS; the second team was tasked with a comparison of the UBL data models and the data models of the RosettaNet Next Generation PIP syntax; and the third team, appointed by the OASIS eGov TC, was responsible for reviewing the UBL data models against government e-procurement requirements. Results from the 0.8 review will constitute the primary input to the work of the UBL Library Content SC at next week's UBL TC meeting in Montreal. While a fair amount of work has been going on behind the scenes during this time to test our ability to create schemas and stylesheets from the 0.8 data models, the result of that work is not intended for implementation and has not been made widely available outside of the UBL Tc. You can expect a proper UBL package like the 0.7 package after the TC has revised the 0.8 data models in light of input received during the June/July review period and has had a chance to produce corresponding schemas, example instances, and stylesheets. Based on our experience with 0.7, I would expect that work to take six to eight weeks following the meeting in Montreal. | 3) What is the ETA of UBL v. 1.0 being a committee spec or an | OASIS spec? Based on the above, we should have another big release out some time in October. This will be the first UBL release recommended for general implementation. Whether it is also the one that becomes a committee spec is up to the TC. | 4) Is UBL most appropriate for B2B applications or B2C | applications? E.g., if it is designed for B2B mostly then I | strongly recommend that as part of 1.0 release UBL be enhanced | for B2C as well. UBL is designed specifically for B2B. Whether and how it should be extended for B2C is an important question, but it's one that belongs to a different phase of the effort. Interestingly, a parallel question has arisen in the eGov TC regarding the extension of ebXML messaging to comprehend government-to-citizen interactions. Initial analysis seems to indicate that G2C requirements can in fact be met by a reasonably scoped set of extensions to ebMS. My intuition is that UBL can similarly be extended for B2C, but this is nothing more than a hunch at this point. | 5) How many companies are planning to use this in their | commercial products I have no data on that. Companies that are serious about implementing a specification-in-progress like UBL typically try to keep their development plans secret at this stage, so we probably won't find out until the implementation release is made. Best regards, Jon Bosak Chair, OASIS UBL TC Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:24:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tony Opatha <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org I'm using the UN ECE defined schema definitions of Currency Code and Country Code with UBL 0.7 Re-useable Aggregate Cmponents. Reviewing the Re-useable aggregates Country element is defined as: <xsd:element name="Country" type="CountryType"/> and Currency element is defined as: <xsd:element name="Currency" type="CurrencyCode"/> In a UBL enabled application if we were to use the enumerated code values defined in the CountryCode and/or Currency Code defined at UN ECE site: http://www.unece.org/etrades/unedocs/repository/codelists/xml/CountryCode.xsd http://www.unece.org/etrades/unedocs/repository/codelists/xml/CurrencyCode.xsd How do we initialize that enumerated value of country codes and currency code defined in above XSDs into instances of the re-useable UBL schemas for elements cat:Currency and cat:Country? Can someone give me an example of valid values of against the UNECE schema such that they are also valid values against the 0.7 re-useable schema? Some other questions: 2) Also, what are are the major differences between 0.8 schemas and 0.7 schemas? 3) What is the ETA of UBL v. 1.0 being a committee spec or an OASIS spec? 4) Is UBL most appropriate for B2B applications or B2C applications? E.g., if it is designed for B2B mostly then I strongly recommend that as part of 1.0 release UBL be enhanced for B2C as well. 5) How many companies are planning to use this in their commercial products Thank you very much and best of luck.