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] Specification approach for UBL 2 SBS


Thanks, Ken, for the suggestion.

I/we'd typically have to produce schemata anyway so making them
suitable for publication seems good to me.

I'd not really want them to be normative though, unless we can do
so without ruling out use in instances (either with TP agreement but
without special agreement being necessary) of non-subset-but-valid-
UBL elements. If it were necessary for some reason to make them
either normative or usable in agreements, I'd say we need a way to
add a normative URI (as we have in UBL 1.0 SBS for the 'XPaths'
files.

All in all it's a lot of work though so we'd need to factor in what
is achievable and how long we have.

All the best

Steve


Quoting "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>:

> Fellow members of UBL SBSC,
>
> I would like to propose to the SBSC that we as a group consider a
> different approach towards specifying the UBL 2 SBS than was done for
> the UBL 1 SBS.
>
> As you recall, we specified UBL 1 SBS exclusively through XPath files
> that catalogued the information items in the subset.
>
> In the development of UBL 2 there has been feedback regarding the
> perceived necessity, let alone convenience, to some of having schema
> expressions of the subset.  This would be a set of schemas for the same
> namespace but specifying a lesser set of optional constructs, just as
> was specified by the XPath files, but doing so using XSD.
>
> I've posted some thoughts of mine regarding UBL customization   
> approaches here:
>
>   http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl/200606/msg00109.html
>
> Please let me know your thoughts about treating UBL 2 SBS as a UBL
> customization effort such that we produce an SBS set of schemata, as
> described in chapter 8 of that paper referenced above.  As I've
> indicated in that paper, I propose using XPath files to conclusively
> prove through exhaustive enumeration that each and every possible
> information item and cardinality of the SBS schemata is an information
> item allowed in UBL.  I don't see the SBS needing any extension
> elements, only needing to elide optional elements.
>
> Because of the push for code lists and other UBL 2 issues (and writing
> my UBL tutorial) I have yet to write the code utilizing XPath files to
> prove the exhaustive enumeration, but this is high on my "to do" list
> once we get into UBL 2 review.
>
> Nevertheless, I thought it important that we should start talking about
> UBL 2 SBS now in order to get ideas on the table for consideration.
> Hopefully for UBL 2 SBS we would be able to subset the common library
> expressions and each of the document types such that we have a single
> suite of XSD expressions of the normative subset of UBL 2 that is the
> Small Business Subset.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
>
> --
> Registration open for UBL training:    Montréal, Canada 2006-08-07
> Also for XSL-FO/XSLT training:    Minneapolis, MN 2006-07-31/08-04
> Also for UBL/XML/XSLT/XSL-FO training: Varo,Denmark 06-09-25/10-06
> World-wide corporate, govt. & user group UBL, XSL, & XML training.
> G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
> Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
> Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal




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