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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl message

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

Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

Title: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups
If I were engaging in a trading partner
agreement and was agreeing that UBL 2.0
be used. I would hardly want that to leave
things open to any minor change of content
2.1, 2.2, 2.3, even 2.99! I would want to limit
things to say 2.2, 2.0 and maybe 2.1. I would
want to specifiy this with the namespace(s)
(perhaps using ebBP, though not necessarily,
depending on the abilities of trading partners).
A.   I would want 2.0 to mean 2.0 and not 2.*
B.   I would want to be able to agree to use 2.3
      (perhaps excluding 2.0 and 2.1 because
      they don't include things I need)
C.   I would want to do the above with namespaces
D.   I would want to be able to check the above
      in any particular instance with the namespace
      of that instance
E.   Sometimes I would be unhappy to have to
      cater for 2.4 by changing the agreement
      and extending my software  BUT on the whole
      I would prefer that to not having A to E above
      satisfied (e.g. not knowing whether I'm getting
      2.8 which I don't know about except that it
      is in some vague way 'compatible' with 2.0)
F.   If I agree to use 2.4, I would be wary that 2.5
      might extend 2.3 and so be backwards
      compatible with 2.0 but not with 2.4
Again, I could go on...
This seems a realistic use case to me. Am I missing
I agree that there is the concept that you can ignore
what you don't understand in XML but I can't
ignore the fact that the supply chain and business
management chain of command might not understand
or agree with this concept. Fixing the contract to a
particular, uniquely defined schema or closed group
(not open ended) of schemas seems to allay
their fears most satisfactorily.
All the best
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

Of course, the version attribute of the schema
is useless in this regard, as would be annotations
for CCTS which, too, are only held in the schema.
Neither can be referenced in the instance, only,
correct me if I'm wrong, the namespace and the
schemaLocation (which could be vague) can
appear in the instance to identify a schema or
an identifier within the schema in a well-known,
standard way. Creating a BIE so that something
else in instances does the same job, or worse, putting
that data into another document separate from the
instance, IMHO just moves the version data to somewhere
far less well-known, far less established.
Besides, I though it was intended that UBL supports
uses which are independant of ebXML, so forcing
use of CCTS-aware registries seems contrary to that
(if that is the alternative being offered to XSD derivation).
Likewise, adopting approaches as alternatives to
straightforward (though complex) uses of XSD seems
contrary to another NDR first principle of UBL.
I doubt even more whether
the version attribute could do the job. I doubt
more still that it could be done with a UBL BIE
for version.
11. I hope nobody suggests that the version
annotation in the schema be used !!  :-)

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