Re: [ubl] Discussion of substitution groups

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk>]

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

something?

 

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

 

Steve

----- Original Message -----

From: Stephen Green

To: ubl@lists.oasis-open.org

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.

 

Steve

 

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 !!  :-)