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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-sbsc message

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

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

Hi Steve

Good thing you raise the question. I admit I did not think when you
added "generic" ebBP's but simply run them as all the others.

I agree that a "in production" CPA's (probably with 'agreed' status
value) should only include real business documents and not a
placeholder. At the same time a "in preparation" CPA (probably with
'proposed' status value) can include anything and it is then up to the
parties to finalize it (eg replace all placeholders with actual values).

So I think what we should do is the following: 

1) Either exclude the CPA generation for the generic ebBP's; only
produce the ebCPPA building blocks.
2) Still generate the sample CPA's but set the CPA status value to
'proposed'. How to recognize a generic UBP? ProcessSpecification nameId
attribute starts with "Generic" or uuid attribute includes generic in
its seventh component (separated by colon :)?

I am open to any of the above. I suggest choice 2.

Concerning CPP's, actually that would be nice to demonstrate. What we
(as ebXML messaging with ebXML CPPA software implementer) realize is
that currently ebXML endusers omit CPP's but create directly the CPA's.
Nevertheless it would be neat to have CPP's as well. That will trigger
the question how to get from two CPP's to a CPA. 

BTW. Did you see Pim's ePV Feedback document? It demonstrates the use of
Attachment in  DocumentEnvelope element.


Sacha Schlegel

On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 11:48 +0000, Stephen Green 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

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