OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-psc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: SV: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context


Title: Re: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context
Hi,
 
I agree with you Stephen. The context categories should not be mandatory when defining contexts but they give a good guidence. You say that more than just contexts should be catered for, can you elaborate on this?
 
Regards,
/Martin Forsberg
 
 

 

Från: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
Skickat: fr 2006-02-17 15:58
Till: Martin Forsberg
Kopia: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org; ubl-sbsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: Re: [ubl-sbsc] Issue in UBL2 on document instances not reflecting context

Not being able to get to PSC meetings, I'd just say that I've always
agreed with this. But I'd add that subsets needn't imply a particular
context - they might but they can be orthogonal to context (depending
on how you view/define context too) - IMHO. So maybe more than just
context should be catered for.

Thanks

Stephen Green


On 17/02/06, Martin Forsberg <martin.forsberg@amnis.se> wrote:
>
>
> Dear PSC (and SBSC),
>
>
>
> In the ongoing work within the Northern European working group on
> e-procurement an issue has come up that we need to find a solution for. We
> are developing and defining a subset for a couple of common business
> processes and business rules. The problem, in a nutshell, is that we can't,
> by just looking at a document instance, see what business process/context
> the instance belongs to. We need to identify the context by looking at the
> instance to decide what business rules (schematron), subset schema and
> optionally what work flow to apply. The Small Business Subset SC has
> developed a great method of defining context specific subsets, but the
> document instance (e.g. the invoice) doesn't reflect it.
>
>
>
>
>
> One of many solutions:
>
>
>
> A new BIE called "Document Context" of type URI or Identifier is added on
> document level (0..1).
>
>
>
> By adopting the UN/CEFACT context categories an URI or Identifier can be
> built.
>
>
>
> Example: urn:northerneurope:businessprocess123 or
> SE:OrderToInvoice
>
>
>
>
>
> From the cefact ndr.
>
>
>
> • Business Process Context Value: A valid value describing the Business
> Process contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In
> All Contexts'.  (BusinessProcessContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Geopolitical/Region Context Value: A valid value describing the
> Geopolitical/Region contexts for which this construct has been designed.
> Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (GeopoliticalOrRegionContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Official Constraints Context Value: A valid value describing the Official
> Constraints contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is
> 'None'.  (OfficialConstraintContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Product Context Value: A valid value describing the Product contexts for
> which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (ProductContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Industry Context Value: A valid value describing the Industry contexts for
> which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All Contexts'.
> (IndustryContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Business Process Role Context Value: A valid value describing the Role
> contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> Contexts'.  (BusinessProcessRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • Supporting Role Context Value: A valid value describing the Supporting
> Role contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is 'In All
> Contexts'.  (SupportingRoleContextValue)
>
>
>
> • System Capabilities Context Value: A valid value describing the Systems
> Capabilities contexts for which this construct has been designed. Default is
> 'In All Contexts'.  (SystemCapabilitiesContextValue)
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know how precisely the construct of the URI/Id is to be defined by
> us or if it is up to the subset-groups to decide on this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I can't participate on Monday's conference call (PSC). Please
> let me know if I need to clarify the issue.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Forsberg
>
> SFTI (Single Face To Industry, Sweden)
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Martin Forsberg
> Sent: den 13 februari 2006 22:01
> To: 'ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: Context in UBL document instances
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I promised to get back to the SC with some background on the context-problem
> we see in the northern European working group. I will try to discuss with
> the rest of the group before sending you a suggestion of a solution. I've
> tried to explain the problem to some people not in to the UBL details (see
> the attached document). I think it might give some background information on
> the problem.
>
>
>
> In the attached document I outline five different solutions and the one that
> I think is the best is number 3 (to use a new BIE).
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Martin Forsberg



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]