Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-comment] Public Comment

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

Unless the intention of the suggestion is to have a container for what
we have for document types, e.g.:

<orders>
   <order>
   ...
   </order>
   <order>
   ...
   </order>
</orders>

But would a raw container with no further metadata or even real data
be of much use? I'm not sure.



On 04/15/2004 08:56 PM, Tim McGrath wrote:
> you are certainly correct in recognizing the xCBL heritage - it was our 
> starting point.
> 
> we also agree with your comments on sets of documents being exchanged. 
> however, this is mechanism best left to the transport, routing and 
> packaging layer of the exchange protocol (eg. ebXML MS).  as all such 
> system handle this differently, it is just adding to the confusion to 
> suggest it be defined (once again) in the content vocabulary.
> 
> comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote:
> 
>> Comment from: elau@walmart.com
>>
>> Hi took a look at the UBL v1 beta and notice that it is very similar 
>> to xCBL.  I did work on and help define xCBL 3.0.
>>
>> A suggestion to you is for all the business documents you need to 
>> provide a way to send a LIST of the same type of document.  One of the 
>> limitation of xCBL is that transact one document at a time.  We the 
>> business need to send a batch of documents of the same type.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to 
>> ubl-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit 
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
>>
>>  
>>
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD