Re: [ubl-psc] New issues from Northern European Subset group

["Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Correction in the attached
line 3: 'the sender may wish to signal somehow to the sender'
should read 'the sender may wish to signal somehow to the receiver'

On 12/03/06, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to mention that with the SBS subset design, the subset document is actually
> an ordinary UBL document, with the same UBL namespace so these issues don't
> apply. The issue related to these that does apply is that the sender may wish to
> signal somehow to the sender that they need the responding document to be
> compliant with the subset (though it would nonetheless be a vanilla UBL document
> all the same). Essentially the naespace is plain old UBL so another mechanism
> is required for the SBS other than that suggested. The emphasis is not on the
> document being semt but on the subset used for the document to be received.
> It may be, importantly, that the document received, which has to be subsetted
> to be properly understood (by machine), is not the response to a previously sent
> document (e.g. it might be a notification process document such as invoice) so
> this entails another mechanism such as ebXML.
>
> All the best
>
> Steve
>
> On 11/03/06, Martin Forsberg <martin.forsberg@amnis.se> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is definitely something wrong with the comment-page. I received a
> > strange error message a couple of hours after posting an issue. I re-post it
> > here and perhaps Betty can file it in the appropriate list.
> >
> >
> >
> > After looking at Peters issue list I see that my post is partly covered by
> > one of Peter's. Perhaps my suggestion and description can give some further
> > information.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************
> >
> > Name: Martin Forsberg
> > Organization: On behalf of Northern European Subset Group
> > Regarding Specification: UBL2.0
> >
> > In the ongoing work within the Northern European Subset 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.
> >
> > Suggested solutions:
> >
> > A new BIE called "Document Context Identifier" of type Identifier is added
> > on document level (0..1).
> >
> > By adopting the UN/CEFACT context drivers or other suitable keys, an
> > Identifier can be built.
> >
> > Example:
> > For the Order to Invoice process defined in the northern European subset,
> > the identifier could be: NES:OrderToInvoice (Geo political context +
> > Business process context)
> >
> > Without this BIE, the only solution (as we see it) is to define specific
> > namespaces for every business process and that will give a very negative
> > impact on interoperability.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Martin Forsberg
> > SFTI (Single Face To Industry, Sweden)
>