Re: [ubl-sbsc] UBP 2.0 definitions needing CPA templates

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

Incidentally, how about if we are eventually able to add a methodology
and guidelines for specializing the generic / abstract (logical document)
process definitions (ebBP) to cater for:

*  transformation / mapping documentation (definition format, perhaps, provided
    as we do for the subsets of the SBS with XPaths)

*  customisation

*  minor and major versions

etc

Elaborating - the generic definitions files each include two
Specification elements
for each document element. They have attributes with placeholder values which
can be replaced (I hope) by some sort of attribute substitution in a specialized
version of the definition (I guess this has to be another file with
another url, hosted
by another organisation, say, as publicly as necessary). The first can
then be used
for the schema of the document. The second might, I'd suggest, be used for
referencing a document with a mapping definition to and from UBL (where the
documents used will be non-UBL) or similar for future or past versions of UBL
(sufficiently different to require use of specialization of the
generic process defintion)
or similar again for mappings to (or equivalent required documentation) a
customized version and/or subset of UBL.

Would it not be nice to provide some day a schema / XML format for creating
transformation definitions in a similar style to our SBS subset definition XPath
files. The main difference would be the need to provide two XPaths, one for
the UBL element or attribute and another for the mapped to/from element or
attribute (or string location if it is an EDI type of document) in the
other document.
This would facilitate use of UBL

*  as a hub between divergent document formats / standards

*  with customisation

*  with other subsets

*  with different versions

*  with combinations of the above

*  with CAM, etc

and all this while maximising interoperability through keeping the business
processes within the above operate as fixed as possible (using UBP).

How does this sound?

All the best

Steve


On 07/03/06, Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sacha , cc SBSC and Monica due to discussion below
>
> Hi Sacha, This is where the time differences between UK and US come in handy:
> I do apologise but I only just realised you were generating CPAs for the generic
> definitions too so we'll need them for the attached too as well as the
> one I sent earlier.
> Sorry.
>
>
> I wonder what the implications of having CPAs for the generic
> definitions will be.
> Is there a way to use the generic definition unchanged? Normally it would be
> included into another to specialize it with attribute substitution
> (I'd like to see
> a demo of that as I'm not yet sure how it would work) for a particular schema
> (typically other than UBL, though it could be another, say future,
> version of UBL
> or a customisation perhaps). What would happen if they were left as they are and
> referenced in the CPAs as they are? On the other hand I appreciate the benefit
> of illustrating a CPA referencing the generic definition as this may minimise
> changes when the definition is specialized and needs to be referenced. But if
> the CPA references the generic definition does that actually prove
> useful in some
> way? Can a CPA be that generic?
>
> Any comments welcome :-)
>
> All the best
>
> Steve
>
>
>