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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-ssc message

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

Subject: AW: [ubl-ssc] derivation methodology Spreadsheets are not the instrument to maintain data properly.

Hi Anne,
imho the spreadsheet models have to be identical in respect of data content
with the ef2spreadsheet output.
Ad the end this means that
- the EF stored data are the master data,
- the cercle EF-->Spreadsheet; Spreadsheet--->EF; EF--->Spreadsheet allows
automated comparision between the Spreadsheet and checks whether EF works
- the maintenance has to be done there
- and that everybody doing UBL maintenance has to get a free EF licence to
do so.

Best Regards,

btw: The cercle I' talked about is what I do for EDIFACT for many years now;
as a result we do not have technical errors in the directories.

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Anne Hendry [mailto:anne.hendry@sun.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2004 07:57
An: Michael Dill
Cc: ubl-ssc-chair@lists.oasis-open.org; ubl-ssc@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [ubl-ssc] derivation methodology

Hi Michael,

Yes, thanks for your thoughts.  What you propose sounds like a good plan.

The primary goal, for both the final 1.0 CD and any future development is
to make sure the schemas are an accurate reflection of the spreadsheet
models.  While the single source model you curently employ avoids some
there is still the necessity to check whether the output matches the
spreadsheet models
(and to correct it if not).  There would be several ways to check this,
including the one
you have suggested.

Regarding your last statement about the purpose of doing a derivation,
it's not so much the derivation that is the point, but the question came up
as to the best way to accomplish 1.1 schema generation.  Yes, we can
to discuss this at the next meeting.  Your input on this would be very

It's good to hear that you and David will both be in Copenhagen!


Michael Dill wrote:

>Hi Anne,
>regarding the last minutes:
>We will need Michael's thoughts on how best to make 1.1 happen:
>   through derivation?  Perhaps a derivation methodology should be
>   developed?  It should start with the models.  1.1 will be different
>   than changes for a future major release.  Since this is mostly
>   done in the model there should be no impact that would be an
>   issue with the rules.  Stephen will check to see.
>Both David and I will be in Kopenhagen in order to support the further
>development of UBL.
>I agree that it makes sense to derive schemas from models directly.
>Currently we derive both spreadsheets and schemas from UML/CCTS data
>This single source helps alot to avoid problems.
>Also I see that a cercle (EFmodel->spreadsheet->EFmodel->spreadsheet) could
>be implemented in order to check the correctness of the EF processes as
>well. Thus we can compare both spreadsheets automatically, which gives a
>better and faster QA.
>Please let us discuss what the purpose of a derivation should be: 1)
>generate 1:1 schemas from UBL models or/and 2) generate profile =
>Best regards,

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