[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: UBL and OAG Common Core Component schemas
I congratulate Tim and Garret for taking the initiative to develop
this convergence plan for Common Core Component schemas. This is
quite an accomplishment, and I think I speak for the whole UBL TC
in expressing our appreciation for the work. We now have a clear
roadmap for moving forward together with OAG on this matter, and
if no one expresses an objection, I will assume that we are agreed
on the general direction that Tim and Garret have outlined for us.
Regarding timing, however, I'm not clear on the impact that this
plan will have on our release schedule. I'm assuming that we will
do what we can without materially changing our schedule and defer
the rest for UBL 1.1, but I'm not sure which item falls into which
category. The breakdown of the items proposed for immediate
action appears to be as follows:
1. Naming of Supplementary Components as attributes
No action for UBL.
2. Use of XSD normalizedString for code, identifier and text
components
Our action would be:
UBL consider the built-in XSD type,"normalizedString", for
all text components (where there is no specific built-in
type, such as "language").
Is this something we can fit into this cycle?
3. Use of XSD built-in dataypes requiring format Supplementary
Component (Date Time, Indicator and Numeric)
Our action would be:
UBL consider relaxing NDR rule STD1 to allow adoption of the
OAG approach.
Two questions here:
- Are we OK with changing our rule to accommodate convergence
with OAG on this item?
- Is this something that we can accomplish within our current
schedule?
4. Restrictions on Binary Object for Graphic, Picture, Sound and
Video data type
Our action would be:
UBL consider adopting OAG restrictions for Graphic, Picture,
Sound and Video data type.
Is this something we can accomplish within our current
schedule?
5. Patterns for Indicator data type
Our action would be:
UBL consider adopting OAG pattern of "true" and "false" for
the Indicator data type.
Is this something we can accomplish within our current
schedule?
ACTION: I need everyone actively involved in this build cycle
to consider these questions and be ready to determine a course of
action in tomorrow's joint SC call (7 a.m. California time at the
usual UBL number). Since these decisions will involve LC, NDR,
TT, and possible CL issues, I urge everyone with an opinion on
this to participate. What we decide tomorrow morning will
determine which parts of this plan can be implemented in 1.0 and
which will have to be picked up in 1.1.
Please feel free to respond to these questions in mail to the main
ubl list before tomorrow's meeting. It would be very useful to
have some timing estimates from the people who are going to be
implementing the changes.
Jon
==================================================================
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:54:55 +0800
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>
CC: Garret.Minakawa@oracle.com
It has been a long standing principle that UBL and OAG would try to
align their implementations of schemas for Core Component Types and Data
Types. The intention is that this will provide input into the work of a
mutually agreed upon standards organization such as UN/CEFACT ATG2 or ISO.
In August 2003 both groups started with a common initial set of schemas.
Since that time these have evolved separately to accommodate design and
implementation issues both within OAGIS 9.0 and UBL 1.0.
As UBL is about to finalize its 1.0 package it is useful to review these
differences and attempt to synchronise our developments.
To this end, Garrett Minakawa (representing OAG) and Tim McGrath
(representing UBL) have reviewed the current OAGIS 9.0 and proposed UBL
1.0 schemas.
We have identified five areas of misalignment:
1. Naming of Supplementary Components as attributes.
2. Use of XSD normalizedString for code, identifier and text components.
3. Use of XSD built-in dataypes requiring format Supplementary Component
(Date Time, Indicator and Numeric).
4. Restrictions on Binary Object for Graphic, Picture, Sound and Video
data type.
5. Patterns for Indicator data type.
We would like to propose the following immediate course of action to
align these schemas.
Proposed Action Items
------------------------
1. Naming of Supplementary Components as attributes.
* Analysis:
UBL have adopted a naming convention for Supplementary Components based
on the ObjectClass + PropertyTerm + RepresentationTerm rule that applies
to BIEs.
OAG have informal naming rules inherited from the initial schemas.
* Proposal:
OAG consider adopting the same naming rules as UBL.
2. Use of XSD normalizedString for code, identifier and text components.
* Analysis:
OAG use the built-in XSD type,"token", for all code, identifier and text
components (where there is no specific built-in type, such as "language").
UBL uses the built-in XSD type,"normalizedString", for all code and
identifier components and the built-in XSD type,"string", for all text
components (where there is no specific built-in type, such as "language").
* Proposal:
OAG consider the built-in XSD type,"normalizedString", for all code,
identifier and text components (where there is no specific built-in
type, such as "language").
UBL consider the built-in XSD type,"normalizedString", for all text
components (where there is no specific built-in type, such as "language").
3. Use of XSD built-in dataypes requiring format Supplementary
Component(Date Time, Indicator and Numeric).
* Analysis:
OAG explictly define an attribute for "format" in the Core Component
Type schema. This is then restricted(prohibited) in the data type schema.
UBL do not define an attribute for "format" in the Core Component Type
schema. This follows UBL Naming and Design rule [STD1]:
"For every ccts:CCT whose supplementary components map directly onto the
properties of a built-in xsd:datatype, the ccts:CCT MUST be defined as a
named xsd:simpleType in the ccts:CCT schema module."
* Proposal:
UBL consider relaxing NDR rule STD1 to allow adoption of the OAG approach.
4. Restrictions on Binary Object for Graphic, Picture, Sound and Video
data type.
* Analysis:
OAG define different attributes for use in data types derived from
Binary Object (Graphic, Picture, Sound and Video). For example, in OAG a
Graphic type has characterSetCode,encodingCode,URI and filename whereas
in UBL, a Graphic type has only mimeCode. (NB this is actually a UBL
modeling error, it was supposed to have all Supplementary Components
except the mimeCode).
* Proposal:
UBL consider adopting OAG restrictions for Graphic, Picture, Sound and
Video data type.
5. Patterns for Indicator data type.
* Analysis:
OAG define a pattern of "true" or "false" for their Indicator data type.
UBL has no pattern.
* Proposal:
UBL consider adopting OAG pattern of "true" and "false" for the
Indicator data type.
Open Work Items
---------------
We also identified some work areas that both OAG and UBL could jointly
pursue. These are:
6. Namespace. OAGIS and UBL use different notation and naming in their
namespace declarations. This should not be a major issue since it is
expected that OAGIS and UBL will eventually use the same set of common
core component schema files once they are officially approved and hosted
by a mutually agreed upon international standards organization such as
UN/CEFACT ATG2 or ISO. Once this occurs, OAGIS and UBL will simply
reference the namespace names adopted by the mutually agreed upon
standards organization. As long as the content of the common core
component schema files remain unchanged, there should be no visible
impact to end users.
7. Annotation. OAGIS and UBL have different documentation/annotation
standards but again, this is not expected to be an issue once the common
core component schema files are implemented by a mutually agreed upon
international standards organization.
8.XML Schema Namespace Prefix. OAGIS uses xs: as the namespace prefix
for http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema. UBL uses the prefix xsd:. As with
namespaces and annotations, this is not expected to be an issue once the
common core component schema files are implemented by a mutually agreed
upon international standards organization.
9. complexType Naming Convention of Representation Terms. UBL has
appended the term “Type” to the name of all representation terms in
“UnspecialisedDataTypes.xsd” (e.g. “AmountType” vs. “Amount”).
10. Name of RepresentationTerms schema (vs. UnspecialisedDataTypes)
11. Abbreviation for Identifier (ID vs. Id)
12. Develop a consistent method for representing prohibited attributes
(and attributes with no changes from the base type) when using
derivation by restriction.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228
postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]