Subject: RE: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's)
Anne and Stephen, Both of your messages are excellent examples that emphasize the need for a structured QA process for the spreadsheets, models, and schema. IMHO, we need to develop a structured, systematic, repeatable process for review and QA that reduces differences in the future, and, reduces the amount of time spent for review and re-review. Other industry groups and standards bodies that I participate in have found a similar need mandatory, not just an option. I would like to suggest that the SSC TC form a QA workgroup that will be responsible for QA of all UBL releases. If such a group is formed, I will gladly volunteer to participate. Regards, Sylvia -----Original Message----- From: Anne Hendry [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:46 PM To: Stephen Green; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [ubl] Review of Two Diffs (Michael/Sue's and Stephen's) Hi, Great coverage, Stephen! Thanks for putting the two together and providing your thoughts on how best to resolve the discrepancies. I just want to add some context for the benefit of those who haven't been able to look closely at the comparisons generated so far. As you mentioned earlier, only a subset of the UBL ss columns are being compared in this excercise. It is these 8 columns: DEN Object Class Property Term Qualifier Property Term Representation Term Data Type Qualifier Associated Object Class Alternative Business Terms This should be sufficient to ensure accurate schema representation of the business data held in the ss model, but I just want everyone to be aware that none of these other columns in the UBL spreadsheets are being compared at this point: UBL Name Object Class Qualifier Property Term Possessive Noun Property Term Primary Noun Data Type Associated Object Class Qualifier Cardinality Component Type Definition and all other columns in ubl ss models following the 'Definition' column. Thanks, -Anne Stephen Green wrote: >Here is my assessment of the differences found using the 'diff' >technique, and my resolution proposals/suggestions. There are ten in >all. > > >1. Address. Street Name. Name vs Address. Street Name. Text >This appears in both sets of diffs. > >Proposed amendment - change published spreadsheet to Address. Street >Name. Name >Reason this will match Address. Additional_ Street Name. Name > > >2. Michael and Sue's spreadsheet picked up on >Address. Additional_ Street Name. Name, etc - published spreadsheets >have extra spaces after the underscore in the DEN's > >This is a known issue which has been pointed out many times before and >appears to be due to a 'bug' in the formula generating the DENs in the >published spreadsheets. In the past the DEN's in Schemas were not taken >from the spreadsheet >so this was just overlooked. Now the DEN's still are not taken from the >spreadsheet >so I overlooked it as before. The effort to put this right might be out of >proportion to the >importance and the impact, if any, of leaving it. I propose to ignore it for >now. > > >3. Michael and Sue's work picked up on the extra dot at the end of ASBIE >DEN's >e.g. Address. Address Line. in the published spreadsheets but not the >Schemas (labelled 'rt' in their work) I ignored it as too minor to >warrant discussion since, again, the DEN's are generated >and not normative. It might be worth fixing the formula to correct this but >experience >from 'beta' with the formulas makes me think it might be more trouble than >the impact >warrants. > > >4. Both sets of diffs picked out the error in Allowance Charge. Reason. >Code >This has little significant impact. I suggest amending the spreadsheet >because that avoids changing the Schemas but I accept that it could be >argued that the Schemas >could be changed because the change is to the documentation only. The 'tag' >name >is unaffected. > > >5. Michael and Sue's worked picked up on the dropping of 'Currency_' from >the >DEN of Allowance Charge. Currency. Currency_ Code in the published >spreadsheets > >I don't know which is correct but I think this is particularly worth >changing if the error is in the Schemas since they are normative. >However, it would be worth changing the spreadsheets >if it was clear which version was correct (from the CCTS). If it is unclear >and the Schemas >don't need to be changed then I'd change the spreadsheets to keep them >consistent with the Schemas > > >6. My diff ommitted the differences in the DEN's for Allowance Charge. >Amount since >this difference only occurs in the DEN and not in the other column >values. Michael and Sue's diff picked up on it. I would propose that >since this requires a change to the formula which generates >DEN's it is probably not worth fixing, except to add a note to the >spreadsheets or package documentation >to say that the spreadsheet DEN's should not be treated as normative or >relied on. Perhaps the values from the Schemas >should be those which are submitted to TBG17 if it is not too late. I do >anticipate push-back on this but I'm >bearing in mind with this and all such spreadsheet formula errors or >inadequacies, that a spreadsheet formual has >limited 'granularity' or precision when compared to a scripting or >programming language for generating such strings. > > >7. Both diffs picked up on a high-impact difference. Exchange Rate. >Operator. Code >The impact of this is high because it has resulted in the loss of the >Operator codelist from the CAC Schema. This needs a correction to the >CAC Schema. EF has it just as Datatype 'Code. Type' but it should be >'Operator_ Code. Type' which would bind it to the operator codelist. >Backwards compatibility might be barely affected >if the NDR rule is followed which requires new namespaces anyway. This >correction would require that that be >done anyway (as we are discussing on ubl-dev with regard to restrictions of >'bound' codelists.) The impact of >the new namespaces on backwards compatibilty is obvious but acceptable, I >would think, in the move from cd >to specification (I take it that is what we are doing at this stage - if not >then we have another problem, we need a second >'cd' namespace, probably.) > > >8. There are two obvious errors in the spreadsheets published, both >similar, but both can be corrected in the spreadsheets >without affecting anything else: DocumentDocumentStatusCode and >IssueIssueDateDate, both in OrderReference. >The reason my diff overlooked these was because I had chosen to ignore >the DEN column which is one place the error is evident and, more >pertinently, I had ignored the DataTypeQualifier column due to the fact >that EF treats this completely differently to the published >spreadsheets, which therefore masked the difference. (Sue and Michael >hadn't filtered out the DEN differences and so highlighted this error.) >. [Also, this was already listed elsewhere in our bug-list.] >The Datatype Qualifiers in the published spreadsheets should be corrected. > > >9. Both diffs found the Schema error Payment Means. Payment Means. Code >which is incorrectly named >Payment Means. Payment_ Means Type. Payment Means_ Code in the Schemas >which also have an incorrect 'tag' name PaymentMeansTypeCode. This was >changed to remove the name part 'Type' during the drafting phase of >1.0 but to change it now would produce a backwards incompatibility into 1.0. >I threfore propose that the spreadsheet be changed >to include the extra word 'Type'. A loose end will then be the name of the >codelist. This is currently PaymentMeansCode but it >cannot (as far as I can imagine) be changed so there will be a discrepancy >which should probably be well documented. The >documentation will need to be examined for any other mentioning of this >element name to ensure it is kept consistent. >(ubl-dev pointed out a discrepancy here.) Chee-Kai pointed out that the >list of values included the 'Type' word but >this will now have stay like that, rather than being corrected as Chee-Kai >suggested. > >Another discrepancy is in the distribution of terms between columns >which should be corrected in the Schema documentation (with no impact >on instances) > > >10. Both diffs found the error in the published Order Change document >spreadsheet. The Schema is correct. The Amount >for LineExtensionTotal should be of Datatype UBL_ Amount. Type rather >than Amount. Type. The published spreadsheets should be changed. > > > > >With regard to my filtering out of spreadsheet DEN formula >discrepancies, I think it is most important to find any errors which >might impact on instances. This is not to say that DEN's etc are not >important to get right, of course, for interoperability. I just think >we are well aware of the limitations and almost to say >crudeness of the spreadsheet DEN formula and would not really wish it to be >relied on when Schemas >can rather use a properly and more extensively programmed formula. Then >there is consideration of there >perhaps being some room for interpretation in the production of the DEN >anyway. > > >Stephen Green > > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >of the OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgrou >p.php. > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php .