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

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

Why does the party receiving have to know what subset is used, just as
long as the same namespace is adhered to and the document is valid.
The semantics are all the same. All that changes is that the system knows
it will be getting what it can understand. I've answered my own question though;
Yes the receiving system can then know that it won't be getting anything outside
of its capability to process as long as it has a guarantee (by the
statement of the
subset used) that the subset it wants is actually being applied. Yes, sorry
Martin, I now agree with you fully. It took me a while to get there :-)

I'd just add that we need to put the requirement to use the subset (hence the
SBS addition of a urn for the subset) in the trading partner agreement so it can
apply before a message is sent...

***
...since it is the receiver who needs to know
1. that both a certain subset will be used and 2. as Martin points out, that the
subset * has * been used
and the sender needs to know 1. and be able to ensure 2.
***

All the best and many thanks,

Steve

On 12/03/06, Martin Forsberg <martin.forsberg@amnis.se> wrote:
> Regardless of subsetting-method, as long as the namespace is not changed, we have to have a BIE that states the context/subset. Even
> if CPA/BPSS/Envelope can solve the issue, we can't (in Sweden at least) require all public and private parties to use it. We will
> have to accept that FTP is used between VANs (Value added networks), ebMS peer to peer and perhaps ws-* when communicating cross
> border in some cases.
>
> Regards
> Martin Forsberg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
> Sent: den 12 mars 2006 19:11
> To: ubl-psc@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ubl-psc] New issues from Northern European Subset group
>
> 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)
>
>